1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
73
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
z2
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Regular Session
Monday, August 19, 2006
9:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
v
0
~4
Q
1
~' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
"" 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
z
I N D E X
August 14, 2006
PAGE
--- Visitors' Input 5
--- Commissioners' Comments 6
1.1	Airport Fencing - Presentation of status		
	with Airport Board on claim for fencing		9
1.2	Presentation by Martin Marietta Materials	of	
	plans to expand mining operation in Kerr	County	25
1.6	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action	on	
	proposed plan provision changes for TCDRS	2007	
	plan year		41
1.14	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action	to	
	authorize County Judge to write a letter	to LCRA	
	regarding Rim Rock-Goat Creek project req	uesting	
	them to take the shortest/least expensive	route	72
1.7 Public Hearing concerning abandoning, vacating,
and discontinuing Privilege Creek Subdivision 90
91
1.3 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
Landscaping Plan for Union Church 100
1.4 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to adopt
a Statement of Support for the Guard and Reserve 104
1.5 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to post
warning signs at Ingram Dam 110
1.8 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to abandon
vacate, and discontinue Privilege Creek Subdivision 114
1.9 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to open
new portion of Upper Turtle Creek Road, Pct. 1 & 4 115
1.10 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to consider
alternate plat process for revising Lots 16, 17 & 18
of Riverside Park, set public hearing for same 121
1.12 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
approving Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility
Policy and Procedures manual for '06-'07 123
1
.._. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
""' 1 3
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
I N D E X (Continued)
August 14, 2006
PAGE
1.13 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action approving
per diem rate for Kerr County Juvenile Detention
Center, approve Judge Tinley signing off on
contracts for counties contracting with Kerr County
for secure preadjudication detention services 127
1.15 Consider/discuss, appoint Lt. Rob McCutcheon to
Criminal Justice Advisory Committee of Alamo Area
Council of Governments to represent Kerr County
1.16 Consider/discuss performing State-required OSSF
functions for City of Ingram, take appropriate
action on resolution from City of Ingram
authorizing Kerr County to perform such functions
1.17 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on
request from The Blue Knights to use Flat Rock
Lake Park the weekend of October 21, 2006
1.18 Consider and decide on process for selecting Human
Resource Director and Administrative Assistant
1.19 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve Appendix for Kerr County Subdivision Rules
1.20 Consider/discuss, approve organization/functions
of departments that report to Commissioners Court
(Executive Session)
1.21 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action on the
"Kerr County Management's Discussion and Analysis"
for 2009-2005 audit
1.22 Reports from the following Departments:
Animal Control
Extension Office
Environmental Health
4.1 Pay Bills
4.2 Budget Amendments
4.3 Late Bills
4.4 Approve and Accept Monthly Reports
5.1 Reports from Commissioners/Liaison Committee
Assignments
--- Adjourned
129
131
136
137
141
143
148
160
173
179
210
212
227
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
On Monday, August 14, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., a regular
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville,
Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me call to order, if I might, this regularly scheduled
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court scheduled for
this date and time, Monday, August 14, 2006, at 9 a.m. It's
just a bit past that time now, so let's commence.
Commissioner 4?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Would you join me in a
prayer and the pledge to the flag, please?
(Prayer and pledge of allegiance.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. At this time, if there's
a member of the public or the audience that wishes to be heard
on any item that is not a listed agenda item, you're
privileged to come forward at this time and tell us what's on
your mind. If you wish to speak on an agenda item, we would
ask that you fill out a participation form. I have some
already. These are located at the back of the room. It's not
essential that you do that; however, it helps me to not breeze
by you when we get to that agenda item. But if we get to an
agenda item and I want to have input as to that item, if
you've not filed a participation form, why, get my attention
B-19-U6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
in some manner and we'll see that you're recognized and have
the opportunity to be heard. But if possible, if you'd fill
out a participation form, we would appreciate it. But at this
point, if there's any member of the audience or the public
that wishes to be heard on any matter that is not a listed
agenda item, why, please feel free to come forward at this
time.
MR. EMERSON: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: County Attorney, Mr. Emerson.
MR. EMERSON: Excuse me. Judge, Court, last
Thursday there was a hearing in the E.B.A. lawsuit of Kerr
County versus E.B.A. on the insurance litigation. There were
several issues addressed in district court. The short answer
is that the trial has been continued. It was originally set
for September 25th. It is now set for January 22nd of '07.
The mediation that was scheduled for August 30th is still
scheduled and going to proceed as planned. E.B.A. and Union
Labor Life have basically turned on each other, and as a
result of it, the continuance was requested by the Union Labor
Life and granted by the Court. So...
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Is there any other
member of the audience or the public that wishes to be heard
on any matter that is not a listed agenda item? Any member
that wishes to be heard? Seeing no one else moving to come
forward, we'll move on. Commissioner Nicholson, what do you
8-14 06
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
have for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, it's hot and dry.
And I didn't get any calls about any fires this weekend, but I
wouldn't be surprised if there weren't some. So, it's time
for everybody to be extraordinarily careful. That's about all
I've got.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. It's time to be
extremely careful with your burning. Actually, no burning
would be best. But I wanted to remind the Court that about 17
years ago, when I was the Commissioner on that end of the
table, this Court started putting in the budget funds to help
build a high water bridge; 17 or 18 years ago, I can't
remember. Well, Monday they're going to have the ribbon
cutting at 9 a.m. on the bridge, and, of course, we're all
invited to that. And by way of reminder, I just wanted to let
you know that if you didn't get it, be sure to be out there.
I think it's an exciting time for us all. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Williams?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We had a joint meeting with
City Council the other day and members of the Court; we talked
about matters of mutual interest and joint projects and
initiatives. And I've participated in a lot of those over the
last eight years, but I have to say quite honestly and
candidly, that was probably the better -- one of the better
R 14-Oo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
ones I've participated in down through the years. I thought
the general working attitude that was displayed by both
governing bodies was good, Tended itself to looking at options
and initiatives that might have -- that might bear fruit for
us in the future. So, I just wanted to say my two cents
worth. I thought it was not a bad meeting. We should have
more like that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wonder if Commissioner
Williams had the follow-up calls from the City Manager.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I did not. I left that
for you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was a good meeting, though.
Commissioner Williams handed me a few minutes ago a -- the
front page of, I guess, the Sunday edition of the Express
News, "water on the way to being liquid gold." First of a
four-part series, it says, of water issues in the state.
Which is a good introduction for a press release that I've
already given to Irene; I've got one here for Gerard.
Wearing -- as chairman of Region J, wearing that hat, we're
calling a meeting for all the Kerr County members this Friday
at 11:30 at U.G.R.A. The purpose of the meeting is to get
everyone -- or all the entities from Kerr County on board and
working in one direction on the new scope of work for Region
J, which is in the process of being written right now. I
H-19-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
thought it would be a good opportunity to do it real publicly
posted meeting, but it is -- certainly, the public is welcome.
And there will be another meeting on September 30th at 5 p.m.
for the sole purpose of putting out a draft scope of work and
receiving public comment on that scope of work. So, I just --
the draft will be available prior to that, hopefully. I'm --
we'll be meeting in Del Rio this Thursday to develop that
first draft, or help start developing that draft for Region J.
So, anyway, water is an important issue. I think, obviously,
the drought here is on everyone's mind, and it's going to
continue to be an issue, and Region J is where the long-term
planning gets done and all the entities work together to make
sure it does get done and gets on the state -- on to the
Legislature to get approved in the state water plan. So,
everyone is invited. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Like Commissioner
9 o'clock next Monday. As he said, it's been a long time
coming, but we look forward to having that as a means of
relieving traffic in the center of Kerrville, so I think that
would be very, very helpful. We've got a long agenda; let's
get on with the business at hand. The first item on the
e-ia-oe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
°- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
agenda is -- relates to airport fencing, a presentation of the
status with the Airport Board on a claim for fencing.
MR. SNOW: Good morning, Your Honor and members of
the Court. For the record, my name is Billy Dan Snow.
Physical address, 760 Johnson Drive, Kerrville. I had
delivered a copy for each member of the Court here last week,
what -- Bill said he saw my "epistle." I referred to it as a
running commentary. Gentlemen, approximately two years ago,
during part of the airport project -- and by the way, I am --
also attending, my wife, Maggie Snow, is here with me today.
We own the property in one corner of Shady Grove Subdivision
that backs up to the airport on two sides. We border the --
the lower -- the upper southeast corner that's right below the
weather station, and the entire upper east side starting in
behind the old E.A.A. building that runs roughly a third to
half of the entire east line down the airport.
In summer of '04, on a Sunday morning, I discovered
that -- due to some dogs missing, I went searching, and we
discovered that the entire north property line of our 8-foot
deer-proof fencing, about 742 linear feet, had been torn out
by the airport. Was pulled out, still laying out there. We
have photographic documentation. We had never been contacted,
never been asked to see if we had livestock, exotics,
whatever. Happened to run into Mayor Fine that afternoon in
8-19-Oo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
Gibsons, and as calmly as I could, sort of explained the
situation. There was a phone call on our recorder before I
could get home that afternoon from the Airport Manager, Dave
Pearce, at which time we requested a meeting of him, the City
Engineer, and the City Manager -- at that time, Ron
Patterson -- the following morning. When confronted with it,
Dave finally said, well, yeah, we had the fencing contractor.
No explanation of why we had not been contacted. Was there
any concern?
And, by the way, that same fence overlaps at our
corner into the corner of Mr. Jenschke's property. His cattle
were allowed and turned out onto the airport, I later found
out through one of his sons. But, basically, they could not
give us a decent explanation. And this was to the point that
holes had already been dug to drop in the -- the new chain
link fencing. And I -- I will paraphrase to get on through
this, but we started and asked that -- you know, number one,
we'd been wronged. "Well, we've got to get this fence up."
Well, yeah. And they started talking about, "Well, we can't
put it on the line." And I observed -- I said, "You've
offset." "Well, we've got a foot overhang." I said, "We'll
sign the waiver," because of the 1-foot, I guess, overhang on
the barbed wire top. But at least through the confrontation,
we -- I thought that we had reached somewhat of a gentleman's
agreement. The City street crew was out there shortly
e-ie-o6
1
,. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.._ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
thereafter, and they actually helped clear the right-of-way.
There was trees that -- tree limbs that would have been in the
properly. They'd already cut and slacked our corner braces on
the other two lines, and we told them that, "Look," you know,
"number one, we'll sign the waiver. Put the fence back on the
common property line instead of offsetting it back on your
side." Number two, we have a bigger problem, because they had
the airport security fencing and gates to be the other side of
the main feeder road into the airport. Well, what that then
caused is, we now had a bright new 10-foot shiny chain link
fence that were routing all the deer that got pushed down that
lane, which is fairly frequent, and the pressure was being put
on our other property line that had not been touched.
They got the fence on the line that they tore out up
within a reasonable time frame, after cleaning up the
right-of-way and grading it to where the fence could be built
properly. Our corner braces have never been resolved. But my
main concern was that we now had a new problem, additional
pressure being put on our fence because of where they had
placed their new fencing. I told them we didn't have to have
a is-oe
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
absolute new fencing, but there was other 8-foot fencing in
place that was to come down in the second phase. The
agreement that Ron and I had worked out was, you deliver to us
enough material, fencing posts, et cetera, and I will erect
the 8-foot fencing on our common line so that we can put an
end to the additional pressure that we now have. And that was
the agreement that was delivered to me. I believe a copy is
in there.
The one hangup was they wanted us to sign off ahead
of time releasing them of all liability, any list of claims,
and I balked and said, "No, when it's a done deal, we'll sign
off." Because we were also asking that in the event they ever
decided to change the fencing again, that a fence be put back
on our common line at their expense. They were the ones that
took the one out on the common line and offset it to their
side -- y'all's side. The airport is a joint, as I
understand, 50/50 ownership between city and county.
Management is contracted through the city. We virtually got
nowhere. Things stagnated. About that time, the U.D.C. vote
came up. Ron wasn't available to return phone calls or
anything. I then went through the interim manager, and
finally went to the Airport Board.
Within a month of this occurrence was when the
Airport Board became a full functioning board, not just an
advisory board, so we took our plea to them, of which
8-19-06
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Dr. Davis and the board virtually decided, well, can you get
back together with city staff? Would you at least -- we said,
"Look, all we've been trying to do is be a good neighbor, work
this out in a reasonable resolution." Sut y'all offered the
Even
that there have been state laws broken, improper contact of a
neighbor with moving a fence. It was then resolved that we
would meet with them, and Commissioner Letz and Councilman
Meek even sat in on that meeting, at which time we went
through the whole drill again with our new City Manager. We
got to the end; he said, "Well, Mr. Snow, what is it you
really want?" And it was right there in the second paragraph
of the letter, of this same short -- three documentation
letters in here of our request.
And if you've read through it, you'll notice that
what they did -- at first, we took the position, "Look, y'all
want to be that way, you put up the fence. We've tried. You
reneged. It's your burden." We actually reconsidered and
came back and said, "Look, all we ask for was a new fence to
take care of the pressure." The number of deer -- our entire
acreage was fenced to keep everything out. Since then, this
summer, and with the drought conditions that we've had, we've
got so many deer in there, we are having to supplemental feed.
8-19 06
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~"" 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"`~ 2 4
25
Maggie and I are both real
estate appraisers and consultants by trade. We have done work
on that airport project back when Joe Minella did the
acquisition on the far end. We have basically come back with
a deal that, even according to my cost manuals, the type of
fencing that they wanted costs out at $18, $19, yet they come
back with an offer saying if we will build 10-foot fencing to
their specification at a cost of $40,000, which is almost $30
a running foot, about 50 percent again over -- and if we'll
pay our $20,000, they'd pay the other $20,000, which obviously
meant they were obligating y'all to 10, or your 50 percent.
First off, I have a real concern that I've got
someone negotiating or attempting to negotiate with me,
whether that was ever presented to y'all and was that even a
valid offer? Can he tie y'all to that commitment? Number
two, we are frustrated beyond means. We have tried to work
this out in a reasonable manner, and we seem to keep getting
stonewalled, or with the attitude, "Let's cost it out or
pretend that it'll go away." what Maggie and I are here
8-19-Oti
1
". 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
°-^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'"` 2 4
25
15
before you	today, and -	- is	an	attempt to reach	some	sort of
indication	from you, as	one	of	the co-owners of	the	airport,
primarily is due to our work schedule and court settings, you
know, that have been extremely heavy on us all summer long.
So, there has been somewhat of a time lag here. But I will be
happy to answer any questions or concerns that are not covered
And I apologize that we did not show up with a nice,
big graphic or map to help understand this, but I think most
of you know the area that we're talking about. We also have
concerns that, even here in the last two weeks, you've had
deer back in the airport, inside your chain link. We drive
out every morning, and I can tell you that not only us, but
our 11-year-old daughter observes how many times there are
deer in there, and then we get to wondering, well, what are
they doing to get rid of them? But during the construction
period, I can tell you, I documented times that those gates
were actually locked open, not opening and being shut as a
vehicle enters. So, to me, you've got a real problem here.
We are merely asking for a reasonable resolution to a harm
that we feel like we've incurred at the Airport Manager and
the airport's direction, that we can't seem to get off dead
a-i9-oh
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
center.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Snow, let me ask you a couple
questions, if I might, sir. You got two sides or two sections
of fencing that are involved here; is that correct?
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Am I correct in understanding you,
that one of those sections was included within the perimeter
fencing -- the new perimeter fencing of the airport?
MR. SNOW: Our north property line was the 742 feet
that was torn out and then later was replaced, but offset a
foot to the airport side, not on the line, with the new
10-foot fencing, yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Then it would be, I guess,
~ your west --
MR. SNOW: It is our west line that now forms
another major part of the airport boundary that there's about
13 -- a little over a quarter of a mile, 1,340-something
linear feet of a straight run that is basically that heavy
wooded area up starting behind the old E.A.A. building and
runs on up what I believe has been classed as some of the
future industrial sites.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. The -- you had mentioned that
you had believed that there were going to be materials
available to accomplish this fencing. Were you referring to
the old 8-foot chain link that was taken down?
R-14 06
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
MR. SNOW: That was what Mr. Patterson and I had
agreed on. It's my understanding that material was let go
during the second phase contract and is no longer available.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you know where that material went?
MR. SNOW: All I know is, I was told, I think, that
it went to the fencing contractor as part of his bid.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on that point, the
material is actually -- I was rather irritated by the
contractor's handling of that, or actually the Airport
Manager's as well, because both Mr. Snow was supposed to get
part of that fencing, and so was Kerr County, to help fence
the -- or to fence the jail. And I guess, under the -- and
the actual contractor told me that we would get it. Under the
terms of the contract, the -- that material was the property
of the contractor, and he chose to do something else with it.
He didn't give it to Mr. Snow or to the County.
JUDGE TINLEY: Was that part of the bid process and
part of his submission?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I understand it, yes. But he
was responsible for taking down the fencing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But what we don't know is
what really happened to the amount that was supposed to be
allocated for Billy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct, or the County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're told that they took
8-74-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't know, really,
whether or not they ever made a pitch to him to -- to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- give it to Mr. Snow for
that purpose. We don't know that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, just a couple -- I mean,
if I can just make a couple of comments, 'cause I've probably
dealt with this probably more than Commissioner Williams.
I've certainly dealt with it a lot, and everything Mr. Snow
says is accurate. The thing that's even -- that he left out
was -- and it's a comment; I hate to somewhat bring it up, but
I will, because I think it is germane to the problem Mr. Snow
has. Mr. Snow referred to a meeting that he had that I
attended along with Councilman Meek. At that meeting, the
City Manager told me -- he goes -- and this is all -- I'll
paraphrase it, but, "Quite frankly, I don't know why you're
even here, Commissioner Letz. This is not your business."
Which -- and that's -- that's more or less accurate, I think.
And I was shocked by the comment. And the City Manager's view
of this, and I don't think -- I think it's not unique to
Mr. Hofmann; I think Mr. Patterson and the interim and
Mr. Hofmann all look at this as a -- a management problem, not
an owner's problem. And I think the airport -- you know, and
9-19-06
1
.'°` 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
""' 2 4
25
19
I don't agree with that. I don't -- you know. And they
Mr. Snow brought it to the Court, because then I think it
becomes a County problem, and Bill and I can take it back.
And it has never been presented -- well, it has been presented
by Mr. Snow to the Airport Board to help resolve, but it was
taken away from the Airport Board as a management issue and
something that the Airport Board did not have authority over
by the City. It was under their management contract. So,
it's a -- it's kind of a weird deal. And I'm really astounded
that it's -- that it hasn't -- I shouldn't say I'm astounded.
I'm surprised -- I'm disappointed that it hasn't been
resolved, 'cause I think Mr. Snow has not been unreasonable,
from what his comments are. And I guess, you know, this gives
the way -- I think the Airport Board is the one that should
try to resolve it, and if they can't, then I think Bill and I
will bring it back to the County. A question that I have for
Mr. Snow is, at one point, the offer was from Mr. Patterson
that -- to give you the used fencing, and that you would put
it up. If the airport were to supply new materials, would you
still put it up?
MR. SNOW: Basically, Commissioner Letz, that is
what is in our letter in there; that if we get the materials
-- and we've costed out the cost of normal deer-proof fencing,
t3 19-OH
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8-foot chain link, 10-foot chain link -- that Maggie and I
have decided that, yes, we'll -- we'll incur some cost to see
that this thing is remedied. But it just -- the fact that we
have -- the attitude towards us is what is more than a little
galling. And, Your Honor, the -- the same packet again, short
of the last two or three letters, back before the end of the
year was provided to the Airport Board. I get there, I'm on
the agenda, but Mr. Pearce hadn't bothered to copy that and
put that in the packets for all the members of that board
until I happened to say, "This was furnished to you weeks
ago." We went into recess so that they could take time to go
get it copied, put it in front of them and insert it into the
packets for that meeting, and then that was when and where I
was sort of judiciously handed off or asked to meet with the
City again, rather than them wanting to deal with it.
JUDGE TINLEY: When was this most recent meeting
with the Airport Board, Mr. Snow?
MR. SNOW: I believe --
JUDGE TINLEY: That it was necessary to copy the
~ material?
MR. SNOW: March -- oh, that was back in December.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Last December.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The reality is that it is --
it is of interest to the County, because we are, as you --
8-19-06
zl
1
.._. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
._ 2 4
25
everybody knows, we are part owners. And that ownership,
along with the other members of the Airport Board, contract,
as you noted, with the City to manage the airport and to take
it back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean, I think
apology by the City for not advising you. And the City was
over the contractor. The contractor was doing the work, but
still the City is responsible. They are the -- the entity
that manages the airport, and were at that time. I think they
owe him an apology, and I think the City-slash-County's
airport needs to participate in putting up a new fence with
their -- with our neighbor. I mean, it's -- you know, at the
meeting that I was at with the City Manager, the City
I Manager's comment was, why should we do -- why should he
recommend the City participate in that? Which shocked me,
because I thought that was just common neighbor -- I mean, a
neighborly thing to do. And I might also add, I know the
State of Texas does it on the property that they own, and
adjoining neighbors, they're free to split the cost of fences.
MR. SNOW: No different than a right-of-way taking
or anything else, which we're all too familiar with. But,
8-19-06
zz
1
"` 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
" 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
surprisingly, all other adjoining property owners all the way
I'm not -- you know, and the
And a new fence?
MR. SNOW: And the new fence was put in. And part
the ranch immediately to that northeast side of the weather
station. I forget the gentleman's name up in Creekwood
Subdivision that has the larger acreage, but there were some
real issues there on trying to create drainageway where the
fence had to go through gaps because of the high-dollar bore
goats that are on that property and everything, to secure and
try to keep them off -- there's been several issues over this.
We just can't seem to get off dead center of getting anywhere.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The offset issue, I mean, I
property, and that's common. If I have a neighbor -- as you
know on your properties, if someone goes along by themselves
and puts up a fence, a lot of times they offset it 6 inches or
something to get it so they own the fence. And I -- so I
don't -- to me, that's not a big issue. I do agree with you
that since they took down your fence, or the common fence that
8-19-Oo
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"" 2 4
25
you -- I don't know if you put it up originally or the airport
put it up or how it got there, but that the common fence that
was on the property line, if -- I think that the -- if there's
some reason the airport fence comes down, there should be an
obligation to put that fence back that was taken down without
anyway, I agree with, you know, Billy on most of the issue.
He's aware of this. We've -- we've discussed this quite a few
times. I'm sorry that we haven't been able to resolve it up
till now, but this, I think, does give us a vehicle to qet it
back at the Airport Board, and in which case I think it is no
longer	a management issue, and that's	what	needs to happen.
	COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'	d like	to reinforce that,
if I might. As joint owners of the airport, we delegate to
the Airport Board, in my view, the authority to -- to manage
the airport, and the Airport Manager or anybody else involved
administratively are hired hands. The Airport Board has the
authority to resolve these kind of issues. And I think I
agree that Mr. Snow is being treated pretty shabbily, and we
ought to make it right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And his treatment --
resolution to his treatment has just begun. It sounds like to
me that you're going to go to the City and going to go to the
Airport Board and going to come back here, you know, typical
government nonsense.
8-14 06
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SNOW: We've only been two years so far.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you got a couple more
years left on this thing. But I -- I think that if -- you
know, if -- I apologize to you on behalf of this Commissioners
Court and the County, that this has happened to you. If the
-- if the government in any way has damaged this man's
property, we need to fix it, and immediately. And if the
Airport Manager doesn't agree with that, maybe he needs to
seek employment elsewhere. It's simple as that. We just need
to get 'er done.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One more thing,
Commissioner. If you're going to give a $40,000 contract for
that fence, I want it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That contract was more than
$40,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, he means for the piece along
Mr. Snow's property.
MR. SNOW: That's just for that 1,340 feet.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Emerson, would you attempt to
obtain true copies of the bids and the award of the contract
that were made to the contractor that did the fencing out
there?
8-19-06
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
LO
21
~~
L L
23
24
25
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And any follow-up documentation, any
amendments, modifications that were made to that -- to that
bid and subsequent award and contract?
MR. EMERSON: Be happy to.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'd appreciate that.
MR. SNOW: And I'd appreciate that, Your Honor,
'cause that was actually one of the final requests, was these
figures appeared to be so far out of line that, obviously, the
best documentation was the contractual bid amounts that both
entities were working off of with the contractor that we would
like available for review. And with that, gentlemen, I'll
await a letter or some response from y'all. Thank you for
your time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about another invitation
to an Airport Board meeting?
MR. SNOW: I try and make all of them I can, Bill,
because there's other projects coming on that I'll probably be
involved with. Thank y'all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Let's move to the next
item, if we might. It was a timed item for 9:15; obviously,
we're a little behind that now. A presentation by Martin
Marietta Materials of plans to expand mining operations in
Kerr County that requires amending Kerr County Floodplain
B-14-06
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^°- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'` 2 4
25
Permit Number F05-022. Commissioner Williams, I think you
Thank you.
Odom, Floodplain Administrator, outlining their plans to
acquire some additional property and to mine that property to
the east in the eastern part of the county, in the general
vicinity of the airport. Subsequent to that letter, I met
with Martin Marietta, along with Leonard, and we -- we learned
of what they wanted to do and looked at their maps and talked
to them about their plans and examined the floodplain, and so
forth and so on. At that time, I suggested it might be
appropriate, given the level of concern that's been evidenced
in the county -- in the eastern part of the county about
mining, that it might not be a bad idea if the folks from
Martin Marietta came before the Court and showed us exactly
what their plan entailed and what they planned to do. I would
hasten to say that -- and they accepted that invitation to do
that, and they are here today, and I'll let Mr. Garcia, in
just a second here, introduce all the folks he brought with
him. I would hasten to tell you that the application for
amending their floodplain permit is not before the Court this
morning. Mr. Odom is dealing with that, and any issues that
might be forthcoming that have not been addressed, if they are
not addressed, he will bring back to the Court. So, we're not
6 14 06
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
23
24
25
here this morning to listen to or to take action on their
proposal to amend the floodplain permit, but it is important
that we know what they're planning to do. And in that
context, Mr. Sandy Garcia is the manager from Martin Marietta,
and you're out of San Antonio, are you not, sir? Sandy?
MR. GARCIA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you brought a whole
covey of folks with you this morning.
MR. GARCIA: I brought a couple people.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would you be so good as to introduce
those people?
MR. GARCIA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Garcia, let me ask one
question before you get started.
MR. GARCIA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just want to know, is the
floodplain issue the only issue that this Court has to deal
with that we have any authority over?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not going to talk about
them mining their private property or anything?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's the floodplain issue,
and that only?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
8-19-06
zs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're not here to deal with
or even talk about whether or not they have the legal
authority to mine their property, because we all know they do.
Mr. Garcia, will you introduce your group, please.
MR. GARCIA: Yes, sir. Thank you. I'll start
with -- my name is Sandy Garcia. I'm the -- excuse my voice;
I lost my voice yesterday. I'm going to try to get through
this. I'm the manager of Sand and Gravel operations for the
southern region. And with me -- would you introduce yourself,
please.
MR. MONTEMAYOR: Good morning. My name is Alvaro
Montemayor, and I'm the plant manager for the Sand and Gravel
group.
MR. GARCIA: Introduce yourself.
MR. BHATNAGAR: Good morning. I'm L.B. I'm the
Division Environmental and Natural Resources Manager for
Martin Marietta. I'm responsible for environmental/
floodplain-related issues for our entire division, which is
all our locations in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and northern
Louisiana.
MR. GARCIA: And with that, just moving on,
Commissioner Williams asked us to make a presentation, an
overview of what we're planning to do with the site, the new
site we're going to open up in September, and we're just going
8-19-06
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to go through that presentation for you, and at the end, if
you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer anything you've
got for us. A1, would you go -- I'll stand over here.
Typically, I'd stand closer to the screen, but there's not
enough room, so I'll just go through it from here. Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let's turn the lights down a
little bit. There we go.
MR. GARCIA: I guess I could stand back here so I
could be out of your way. Might look a little better for you.
We're going to go to the overview now. It's the -- we're
going to show you the property boundaries, the mining plan,
the berm layout, and the buffer zone. And we'll go -- go
ahead and go to the first one, A1. The property boundaries,
and we'll show you on a map in a minute, but it's -- the
boundary on the west is the Drymala property. South is -- and
it's south of Highway 27 and north of River Road, and it's
approximately 80 acres that we're going to be mining. Go
ahead. The blue line is -- is outlining the property itself.
The property boundaries are in blue. You can see to the r,orih
Highway 27, to the south River Road, and Drymala property over
to the east, and our property, the property we're currently
mining, to the east of Drymala. I think reference there is
the -- the entrance to the airport. Someone was just speaking
about that. There's the entrance to the airport right there,
across 27 from us.
8-14-06
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Go ahead, Al. Our mining plan -- excuse me. we
plan on starting our mining in the first -- at the first week
of September, starting at the center and the east end of the
property. And the travel path from -- and we'll show you that
on our map. The travel path from the property to our current
mining operation will be on the north end of the Drymala
property, and across Sutherland Road. Go ahead, A1. That's
the area in red we're planning on mining. And the arrows --
the blue arrows indicate where we will start center and east,
and then move on to the west. And then the proposed travel
path, which is the north end of the Drymala property and
across Sutherland Road.
Go ahead, A1. I wanted to give you an idea of our
berm layout, buffer zone. The south end buffer, it will be
about 150 feet from the edge of River Road. The east buffer,
50 feet from the creek, which we'll show you in a second. And
the west buffer will be 75 feet from the property line. And
the north buffer, it's kind of a triangle in that area, so
we're going to start at 200 feet, and it will move all the way
to 400 feet. We'll show you that in a second. And the berms
will be built as per IMSA safety standards. Go ahead, A1.
The area in the -- I don't know what color that is, but
whatever color that is, that's kind of the outline of the
berm, or the berm area. As you'll note, to the north we have
a kind of a triangle, and that -- that kind of gives us your
8-14-06
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
200 feet over to the east and northeast corner, and then 400
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you explain "buffer zone"?
MR. GARCIA: Actually, just -- we just put berms up,
and we cannot go beyond those -- those buffers to the out --
outside perimeter of the property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How tall are the berms?
MR. GARCIA: A1, have you got an idea -- have you
got an idea what we're going to build yet, per IMSA standard?
MR. BHATNAGAR: Per IMSA standard, these berms have
to be at least half of the tire height of the biggest vehicle
that's going to be traveling around these berms, pretty much
for safety reasons. And these berms -- the buffer zone that
you see there is about 50 feet, and these berms are typically
three-to-one berms. Depending on the kind of vehicle it is
and the material that we are putting in the berm, this thing
could be as high as 10 feet to maybe 15 feet or higher.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you.
MR. GARCIA: Go ahead, Al. Here we're just simply
showing the creek that exists on the property. That's on the
east -- on the east end of the property. There's two little
tributaries there that feed that from 27. Go ahead, Al. And
that's all I had. Very brief, just kind of a review of what
8 19-On
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
area in the floodplain?
MR. GARCIA: No, sir. No, sir. In fact, can you
address that, please?
MR. BHATNAGAR: There's a smaller eastern portion of
the property. There -- there used to be an old ephemeral
wash, just a channel where the wash used to -- can I come up?
MR. GARCIA: Sure.
MR. BHATNAGAR: The drainage from here used to come
around and come out this way. There is a pipe underneath the
River Road, and the water still leaves the property up here.
This is pretty much the backwaters that makes the floodplain
up there. For years past, the drainage that used to meander
towards the eastern property, it has been relocated into a --
into a drainage ditch along the eastern part of the property.
So, this berm that you see here, that accounts for that ditch
-- drainage ditch that's already existing and carrying water,
and from the edge of that drainage ditch, this buffer is
50 feet. So -- so, the old floodplain maps that we have, they
still go back to the older meandering channels, even though,
in reality, for years the drainage channel has been relocated
right along the property boundary. So -- and so that's pretty
much the area that's part of the floodplain.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Will that eastern berm
cause a rise during a flood, a rise in the level of the
Guadalupe River?
8 14-n6
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BHATNAGAR: No. The -- the drainage channel
that's already existing up there, it is sized, and we have
gone through the calculations and we are working with Mr. Odom
with those. That channel has sufficient size and capacity to
carry the flood waters and also the backwaters, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: The floodplain area that will be
under consideration, if I understand, then, correctly, is on
the -- towards the eastern edge of that property that's
outlined there; is that correct?
MR. BHATNAGER: That is correct, sir.
DODGE TINLEY: It's not over on the western edge?
MR. BHATNAGER: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just along the eastern edge?
MR. BHATNAGAR: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. Does the floodplain
on the southern portion -- does the floodplain reach on the
property, or does it stay on the other side of River Road?
MR. BHATNAGAR: It does reach on the property.
That's why you see the buffer that's here. That's larger than
all the other buffers. This 150-feet buffer, that accounts
for all the floodplain, and more, because the -- the
floodplain is a little bit irregular.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. BHATNAGER: So, when we met with the
8-14-n6
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commissioner and Mr. Odom, we said we'll keep the buffer where
it's straight and easy to see; it will be marked on the ground
so there is no encroachment on the buffer zone on the
floodplain. So, we'll stay out of it completely, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, the floodplain area that will be
under consideration will be the east side, and also the south
side?
MR. BHATNAGER: Yeah, just very small. The small
portion on the south side.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick question for Len. Is
that -- the drainage on the east side, that's the ditch that I
believe Mr. Shelton put in that there was an issue about, but
that issue has been resolved?
MR. ODOM: Well, that issue was -- Mr. Shelton put
that in. U.G.R.A. was involved in that, and -- and Frank.
But as far as I -- he's got the calculations showing that.
And that's what I need to know, because it doesn't go through
that fill any more, like it -- FEMA did that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. ODOM: So, I feel comfortable, if he puts his
seal on this thing, and we've done the -- done the
calculations that that floodplain is moved out of the middle
of the field. That's the reason Mr. Shelton did that, was to
8-19-06
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
get it out of there, and it flooded and it moved it back. And
that issue was something that -- Bobby Shelton died many years
ago, and I -- I don't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
I
MR. ODOM: I wasn't involved in it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I wanted to make sure I was
thinking of the right spot on the right --
MR. ODOM: You are. It is -- that is the right
spot. It was realigned along the area, and by his
calculations, that's an un -- that's an unstudied area, an AE
area. The AE is where -- is down below, and that's where he
was talking about, that 150 foot went back in a certain area,
not the whole area. But what we're doing is taking that AE
area and staying completely out of it. The berm -- the total
of slope and that berm will be 150 foot and go back, and then
the other side will be 75 foot, a buffer from that property
line right there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you.
MR. ODOM: Which is most of where he's talking
about. Everything above 150 and 50 foot back the other side
is "X", is a 500-year frequency.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Leave that up there, if we could.
Mr. Happy, I believe you wish to be heard on this matter?
MR. HAPPY: Yes, sir.
8 14-06
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Give your name and address for the
MR. HAPPY: Yes. My name is Nelson Happy, and I
actually live -- this property -- our property adjoins this
proposed site. We live in Kerr County in Center Point.
Martin Marietta has never contacted us or said a word about
this project to us. I'll just point out, our house is here,
and this is our land. My question to Martin Marietta is,
first of all, have they taken into account that considerable
changes have taken place already in the flow of water in this
area? When the airport removed all of the vegetation and
trees on Highway 27 to build the new fence, there was an
enormous change in the water that has come on these
properties. And it was -- as I heard Mr. Snow talk a bit
about the problems that the airport created for him, we had
similar problems with massive fires that were created by the
airport, causing great smoke problems. Fortunately,
Commissioner Williams helped out on it, but there was almost
anarchy, I think, on the handling of removal of that
vegetation. But the net result has been a big change in
historical flow of water as a result of all that.
Secondly, I'm not aware of any accommodation that
Martin Marietta is taking to, I believe, the state law that
requires a 500-foot setback from the state highway for mining
operations, and this appears to be within that 500-foot area.
B-19-06
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And thirdly, I was wondering if there was any plan for
remediation of this site after the mining is completed. And I
might finally say that we're extremely opposed to this plan,
and will do whatever's necessary to fight any permits from a
legal perspective. Any questions for me about it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Setback issue?
MR. GARCIA: Setback issue, I'm not sure that -- I'm
not familiar with the 500-foot setback issue on this property.
L.B., can you address that?
MR. BHATNAGAR: The setbacks from the highway, they
are regulated by the Railroad Commission. And the -- the
buffers, the Railroad Commission requires certain setbacks,
and also there is a variety of setbacks where if you are
mining closer to certain public highways, then we have to make
sure there is berm -- or safety berms in place so people don't
accidentally drive into the mining pit area. And all our
mining areas, they'll comply with the Railroad Commission
requirements.
MR. GARCIA: And as far as the water issue that you
mentioned, I -- I don't know of that issue. I have not --
I've not -- wasn't aware of it. That's something that we do
need to look at, probably.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're talking about the
removal of the vegetation on the airport property has caused
increase in sheet flow coming off on your property?
8-19-n6
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ly
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
MR. HAPPY: Yes, it's been quite a remarkable change
on all the property on the other side of the highway from the
airport changes. Yes, and there are a number of springs on
the hillside that have been affected by that, and could
potentially be affected by this mining operation, too. The
springs right near the barn, you can see the north end of that
drawing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, while setback is a
different issue from floodplain, I would like Mr. Odom to take
a look into that to see what the state regulations are with
respect to setbacks off the state highway when you're
examining this issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I don't know
that Mr. Odom's qualified to -- I mean, I understand
Mr. Happy's concern, and I think Martin Marietta needs to
comply with all the state law, period. And I don't think --
MR. GARCIA: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't think that Mr. Odom
needs to spend his time checking what the state law is.
That's up to the Railroad Commission and T.C.E.Q. and the --
and probably TexDOT, and who knows who else. So, I mean, I
just hate to saddle him with having to be responsible to look
at what the setback rules are for -- for a mining operation.
That's up to the state agencies.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: My point only was just to
8-14-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
make certain we had the correct information, that's all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not to regulate it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We appreciate you being
I here.
MR. GARCIA: We had one more map to show.
MR. HAPPY: Judge, I had one other question I asked
him. It was, are there any remediation plans for this site?
MR. GARCIA: Typically, we will have -- once we're
through mining a site, we will have a remediation plan in
place and we will reclaim the property, yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, at the risk of mixing
apples with oranges, which I really don't want to do, but
you're -- the Court will remember that we talked at the joint
meeting with City Council about the abandonment of a proposed
bridge over the Guadalupe which would cut right through the
middle of county property in the vicinity of the Ag Barn and
River Star Park and Flat Rock Lake Park, and, certainly, we
don't want that to happen. But the issue of a crossing across
the Guadalupe, as the county continues to grow and the city
continues to expand southward out Highway 173, has caused me
to meet with Mr. Odom and begin to talk about -- we've had a
preliminary -- just a preliminary discussion with TexDOT about
another possible alternate crossing on the Guadalupe, and what
we're really beginning to noodle a little bit is -- and let me
a is-o6
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
orient the Court. This is Sutherland Road right here. This
is Highway 27. This is Airport Loop Road right here. This is
Brinks Crossing right here and C.P. River Road meandering
through here. The idea, of course, would be to facilitate a
crossing that would link Highway 27 at the vicinity of the
Airport Loop Road with Highway 173, which is down here, and
cut across and create a new crossing at Brinks Crossing and
find a way to meander up here and link up with Highway 173.
It's in the noodling stage -- it's in the noodling stages.
Nothing's happened.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Should I run?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Had some discussion with
TexDOT, and that's the extent of it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: How long would the --
what -- over what period of time would you mine this location?
How long will it take to get the product out?
MR. GARCIA: We are probably looking at somewhere
between six and eight years. Is that correct, A1?
MR. MONTEMAYOR: Yes.
MR. GARCIA: We're putting together a mining plan
now, but probably six or eight years.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Williams,
you're thinking that, coincidentally, there might be a -- a
route for this --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why we brought it up
e i9-oF
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in this discussion with Martin Marietta, is because if that
were to come -- come about, we'd need right-of-way through
there, and probably, based on the way TexDOT does things these
days, it would fall to the County and/or the City to go -- our
responsibility to provide the right-of-way. And -- and that
is a county road that crosses Brinks Crossing. C.P. River
Road is a county road. So, yeah, I thought as long as they're
getting ready to mine, this might not be inappropriate to talk
about future right-of-way requirements. That's all I have.
MR. GARCIA: Gentlemen, thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. GARCIA: We appreciate the time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for coming.
MR. GARCIA: It's just going to take us a couple of
minutes to take our equipment --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can resume your
discussion with Mr. Odom.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have another timed item that we
are late in getting to -- it was timed for 9:45 -- that we'll
move to now. Item 6, consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action on a proposed plan -- on proposed plan changes,
provision changes for Texas County and District Retirement
System 2007 plan year. We have with us a representative from
T.C.D.R.S. If you'd be kind enough to give us your name?
MR. JAGOU: Absolutely. Good morning, gentlemen.
8-19-G6
1
"' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
""` 2 4
25
42
and District Retirement System. I have little packets for you
guys that we can go over just briefly. I am stumbling on
things, too. I've got one for everybody.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
MR. JAGOU: First of ali, I want to say that I have
when I was a youngster for four years back in the -- well, it
was a long time ago, back in the late '70's, early '80's, so I
always enjoy coming back to Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Does your orange T-shirt
still fit?
MR, JAGOU: No. The shorts don't fit either,
unfortunately. But I want to briefly just go over just a
brief overview of the plan and the changes and how it affects
the plan, and then I will go into the two specific items that
were proposed to me by -- that I believe the County Treasurer,
Ms. Nemec, had proposed to y'all, and which you referred to
the partial lump sum distribution at the time of retirement,
and also lowering the retirement eligibility requirements from
30 years to 20 years. So, if y'all wouldn't mind, if y'all
H-19-OF
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"' 2 4
25
would take out this portion of the -- of the presentation that
Like I said, we'll -- as you guys know, we're just going to go
over how Kerr County pays for its retirement benefits, and as
well as the retirement benefits that you as Commissioners can
select on a year-to-year basis.
Now, the way that the Kerr retirement plan works is
ounty is saving in advance. The rate that you pay
right now, the percentage of payroll is going into an account
that we have set up at T.C.D.R.S. We are saving in advance
for the benefits -- for the retirement benefits that you are
promising your employees today that you will pay out to them
in the future when they retire. Not everyone's going retire
from Kerr County, as we know, but for folks that do end up
retiring from Kerr County, you are saving money for them right
now to go ahead and -- and pay out these benefits in the
future. Now, the Commissioners Court, current and past, has
established a benefit plan for county employees, and the
county's contributions to T.C. D.R.S. become part of that trust
and will be used to pay out the county employees' annuities.
Now, the more benefits you promise to your County employees,
that means the more contributions you have to make for those
benefits, in order to pay for those benefits down the road.
Now, the way that we look at it is that we compare
8-19-05
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the county savings, your projected assets, to the benefits
promised the County employees. In other words, the future
~ projected payouts, which is why your contribution rate
increases or decreases annually. So what we're doing,
make actuarial assumptions. Now, are we ever going to know
that we made the correct assumptions? The only way we would
ever know is when the last retiree gets his last annuity
check, so, obviously, we have no idea when that's going to be.
Now, just to give y'all an example, if we go -- flip over to
Page Number 4, T.C.D.R.S. Every year we set actuarial
assumptions, certain things that we look at based on how Kerr
County has performed in the past, and where we look at
expected employee withdrawals, expected payroll growth. And
what we mean by that is, your current rate right now is
7.6 percent. Well 7.6 percent in January may not equal the
same 7.6 percent that you're paying in December. Maybe you've
hired more employees. Maybe your payroll has gone up. Maybe
it's gone down, et cetera.
We also assume an 8 percent return on investments
for the employer side. Now, as you guys know, the employees
receive 7 percent of return on investments to their accounts,
and that's guaranteed by the T.C.D.R.S. Act. There is a
defined benefit plan, so the ones that assume the risk on our
investments are actually the employers. They're the ones that
8 19-Oh
1
~" 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
""' 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
assume the investment risk. So, our goal at T.C.D.R.S. is to
achieve 58 percent return so that the employees can get their
7 percent which is guaranteed, and that employers will then
get 9 percent credited to their account. Obviously, some
make up that to reach the 9 percent. And -- but then again,
in some years we -- we make more than 9 percent, so that the
employers will be able to enjoy that as well. And, obviously,
we do is that we look -- we make these assumptions, and then
we base that on what's happened in the past, and then we
compare it to what actually happened in that year. And that's
how we come up with -- with the rate.
Now, another thing that's happened that we do every
four years, is every four years we have our outside actuary, a
company called Milliman, they come in and perform what we call
an investigation. They look at our last four vears worth of
actuarial assumptions, then they make some recommendations to
us based on these assumptions. And they look at not only Kerr
County's plan, but they look at the entire system as a whole
because Kerr County's plan is going to be independent from
what the other counties have, what the other districts have.
There's a couple of districts here in Kerr County that are
also members of T.C.D.R.S. as well. So, if you look at Page 5
8-19-06
46
1
"" 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--- 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"" 2 4
25
here, I have Kerr County's rate history for the past four
years, and as you can see here, just looking at the beginning
And the very last column, 2006-2007, you're going to
investigations study. What we've noticed is, folks in the
counties are working longer. In other words, they're going to
be working longer, to the point to where they get vested if
they work -- in Kerr County, it's eight years. Once they
reach eight years, they're vested. In other words, if they
have 28 years of service that they leave Kerr County, if they
leave their money in, they're going to be able to benefit when
they reach one of the other age requirements for retirement,
and that's exactly what's happening to Kerr County. The
median age -- the median years of service is over eight years,
so for folks that are leaving Kerr County that have more than
eight years of service, they're leaving the money in, so
that's the reason why this .6 has actually gone up. That's
why it's increased your amount for next year.
Now, you guys are thinking about considering making
some additional changes, and I want to go over those as well.
And	those changes	are lowering	the	retirement	eligibility
from	-- and that's	going to be	on	Page 7, the	bottom one.
fl 19-OG
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Lowering the retirement eligibility from any age and 30 years
of service, which is what it is currently, right now, to any
age and 20 years of service. Now, when you lower retirement
eligibility, that is a permanent change. You can't go back up
to 30 years if you lower the retirement eligibility. It's
going to be 20 years, and it's going to be permanent. That's
going to have some effects. First of all, it's going to make
a lot more folks eligible to retire a lot quicker than in the
past, because folks that are at 15, 16, 17 years of service,
instead of having to wait 10 more years to get to the 30
years, obviously, they don't have to wait nearly as long. So,
that could have an adverse effect on your future rates in the
years down the road, especially if a lot more folks take
advantage of that early retirement.
Now, the other change that you are considering, if
we flip the page to Page Number 8, that is partial lump sum
distribution. Again, this is a permanent change that you are
making to your retirement plan, if you decide to do it. And
what this says is, if I'm a Kerr County employee and I'm going
to retire, if you have authorized partial lump sum
distribution, then what I can do is that I can take anywhere
from zero to 100 percent of the balance of my account out, and
then Kerr County is still going to match the whole balance.
Say if it was $100,000, they're still going to match that
$100,000 at 190 percent, but I could take out anywhere from
8-19-06
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2J
zero to -- zero to 100 percent of that. So, in other words,
what would happen, it would end up costing the County a little
bit more because of the way we pay out the retirement
annuities, which we're going to exhaust the employee's portion
of their account first, and then we'd go into the employer's
portion as far as the match, and if the employees take out
their portion first, the first thing we're going to exhaust
when it comes to the annuities is going to be the employer's
portion.
Now, there are couple of caveats, as far as on the
I
employee. What this would do to them, first of a11, it's
going to lower their monthly pension if they -- if they do
take out a partial lump sum. And secondly, remember, this is
a tax-deferred retirement plan, so there are going to be some
tax consequences if they do take out a partial lump sum. We
withhold 20 percent to pay for federal income tax, and if
they're under the age of 59 and a half, they may be subject to
a 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. So, partial lump sum
is an optional. It is an optional. Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: Would partial lump sum also be a
permanent change?
MR. JAGOU: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: With the 20 to -- or 30 to 20 year?
MR. JAGOU: That is correct. It would be a
permanent -- it would be a permanent change to your retirement
B 19-06
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
plan, as well as lowering from 30 to 20 years.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This lump sum withdrawal,
is it correct that any employee can avoid the federal
withholding of the early withdrawal by rolling that amount
into an IRA?
MR. JAGOU: They could roll it over into an IRA or
an option for the retirees. All the retirees do not have to
do this, but it is an option that they have. One thing they
say is that we do -- remember, for folks that are retiring,
the way that our retirement plan works is, we have -- we
compound interest on an annual basis, so for folks that are
eligible to retire, they put in 20 years, et cetera, we
guarantee 7 percent on the retirement plan, and which means
that your account's going to double about every 10 to 11
years. And I -- and since the 7 percent is guaranteed -- I
don't know of any financial adviser that could guarantee 7
i percent, and if I do hear of any, then you may want to talk to
another financial adviser, 'cause they're not supposed to do
that. So, it is -- it is something that the employees are
going to have to think about when they do retire. But you, as
Commissioners Court, are providing them with that option.
Now, there are going to be some costs involved when
it comes to this. And if you look at the -- in your folder, I
have the plan assessment for Kerr County. If you flip over to
B-14-06
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the very last page, what I've done is that I've created some
-- some exhibits that have rates for these options, and I've
done an exhibit to show how much would be added to the 2007
rate by lowering eligibility separately, partial lump sum
separately, and then combining both, how much the rate would
be. And if you look under plan rates, total required rate for
2007 for the current plan as-is, if you don't make any changes
for next year, Kerr County will be paying 8.12 percent. Now,
if you re -- if you lower the retirement eligibility from 30
years to 20 years, that 8.12 percent will go up .14 percent to
8.26 percent. Now, if you just do the -- if you just provide
the partial lump sum, then that 8.12 percent would be
increased by 25 basis points to 8.37 percent. And if you
combine both, then the increase would go from 8.12 percent up
to 8.54 percent. In other words, an increase of .42 percent
if both are added to your retirement plan.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What would be our
motivation for making such a change? What --
MR. JAGOO: Well, motivation could be maybe you want
want to, you know, bring on some -- some younger people; you
don't have to pay them as much, so maybe that would be one of
the motivations. Partial lump sum, I hear -- just like you
mentioned, maybe some folks are going to want to do something
else with their -- when they retire. They have the option to
B-19-06
51
1
°. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~--- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
carve out a portion of what they'd saved all those years, and
lower salary.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And this -- these options
of lowering eligibility and offering a partial lump sum, these
are new options?
MR. JAGOU: They are not new options. They have
~ been a part of the retirement plan for quite a while. I will
say that the -- for the retirement eligibility -- and if you
do lower it to 20, you would have three ways for folks to
become eligible to retire, and that is at 60 years of age and
eight years of service, or what we call the Rule of 75, which
is your age plus the years of service that you've put in, or
in this case, at 20 years and any age, you'd be able to
retire. And there are 47 other counties in Texas that have
the 8f75/20 of -- those three levels of retirement
eligibility.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Baldwin, in
the past, have you old-timers considered making these changes?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I haven't heard these
8 19-U6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
kind of changes. We've made some changes through the years.
And I actually fall in some of this, so I'm going to think
about this pretty strong.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- the employee rate doesn't
change; it's the County's contribution.
MR. JAGOU: That is correct. The employee will
still be paying 7 percent, which is the maximum that the
employees can pay from their -- can contribute from their
paychecks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: County's contribution will go
from 8.12, if we did both, to 8.54?
MR. JAGOU: That is correct. That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM5: So, it would be under a half
a point if we did both.
~I MR. JAGOU: Yeah, the whole -- the total amount
would be .42 percent would be the increased rate. Judge, did
you have a question?
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the partial lump sum
distribution would only be applicable to that which the
employee has paid in?
MR. JAGOU: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: From the employee's --
MR. JAGOU: It would be the employee's account.
That's the only portion that they would be able to partially
draw out anywhere from zero to 100 percent.
B-14-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
JUDGE TINLEY: So, that's their money anyway.
MR. JAGOU: Exactly. Exactly. You're -- and -- but
it -- like I said, what it would do is, the way that our
county -- if you look at page -- I have it on here -- at Page
8, I have calculating the pension, a little chart showing
calculating the pension. And the way the retirement plan
works is, when a person decides to retire, you're going to
look at final balance. We move it into what we call an
annuity reserve, at which time the funds from Kerr County are
moved in there as well, and they match -- Kerr County matches
at 190 percent. So, if the employee has $100,000, you -- Kerr
County is then going to match that with $190,000. But if the
employee takes out all that $100,000, Kerr County is still
matching 190; they're still going to match it 100 percent of
what the -- of what the employee had in his account, so Kerr
County's still going to move that $190,000 in. But instead of
exhausting the employee's account first, which is how the
retirement plan works, it's going to start exhausting the
County's money, which is why there is going to be a little bit
of a -- of a bump in your rate when you first do this.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do you have a -- sorry, Judge --
an idea as to what the financial impact is to the County of
these -- I mean, this looks like small percentage increases
here, but I suspect these numbers are real large.
MR. JAGOU: Well, as far as financial impact, it
8-19-OG
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
really is going to depend on --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Payroll?
MR. JAGOU: -- on payroll. Payroll's going to be
the big -- I have noticed over the past five years, though,
that your county has grown, so your payroll is increasing.
So, I have noticed that. Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: I notice that you did not compute any
possible changes in buy-back. Would you, number one, tell us
about that provision and what might be entailed there?
MR. JAGOU: What a buy-back is, a buy-back allows
folks that have come back to the county -- they have worked
previously in the county, had withdrawn their funds when they
left -- they withdrew their account, and then they come back
to work for the county. And what a buy-back does is, if the
Commissioners Court passes a buy-back, what they're saying is,
"Okay, you folks that left the county can go ahead and put
your money back into the account, and -- into your account,
and then we're going to match that at retirement." And -- and
that -- and if you -- if a buy-back was something that you
were looking at, then we would actually perform what we call a
buy-back study to look at what -- who are the employees that
would be affected by this buy-back, and ultimately how much it
would cost the county for the buy-back.
JUDGE TINLEY: How long would it take to you perform
such a --
8-14 06
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JAGOU: It takes about a month, and as long as
we have -- we have to have it in by October 15. So, if there
is something that you would like me to do, I will be more than
happy to provide that for you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'd like to -- as long as we're
looking at options, I'd like to take a look at that.
MR. JAGOU: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: 'cause it -- it occurs to me, that's
a way of -- when you have the option of getting experienced
employees back in the fold, as it were, that -- that would be
an incentive for them to come back to work for the county, if
there were ones that you wanted to get back.
MR. JAGOU: If they're folks that have left.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Essentially, Judge, you do
this buy-back option on a one-off basis? Or is it -- are we
implementing a policy where anybody would be eligible?
MR. JAGOU: No, the buy-back -- that would be the
folks that had left and came back; they would be eligible to
participate. Now, it is their option. They don't necessarily
-- you're not forcing them to participate, but they are going
to have the option to participate. It's not for all
employees; it's just --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We don't have that --
MR. JAGOU: -- a select number.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We don't have that
8-14 U6
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
provision in place now?
MR. JAGOU: No, you don't have a buy-back. And I
think that Kerr County did pass a buy-back, actually, in 2003.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is this a -- a periodic option that
we exercise, or is this something, once we exercise it --
obviously, it's not permanent if we did it in '03 and it's not
in force now.
MR. JAGOU: For the folks that had left and come
back before 2003, then they would be eligible to participate
in the buy-back right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, those --
MR. JAGOU: But the folks from 2004 to today would
not be eligible to participate.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I --
JUDGE TINLEY: So, we've got it in place for a
significant number of employees --
MR. JAGOU: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that may be out there. Just those
that came on board since -- since '03.
MR. JAGOU: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've not afforded that option to
them.
MR. JAGOU: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
8-19-06
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just a clarification --
MR. JAGOU: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- if you will, on the COLA.
MR. JAGOU: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The -- the last time we
adopted a COLA adjustment for retirees was in '05, I believe.
MR. JAGOU: That is correct, 2005.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was a -- that was a
one-shot adjustment; is that correct?
MR. JAGOU: Yes, that is a -- a permanent increase
to retirees' annuities, and the one that you passed was
50 percent of the Consumer Price Index COLA.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For that year?
MR. JAGOU: For that year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which is added onto their
pension from that point forward?
MR. JAGOU: Exactly, going forward, because you're
permanently increasing your retirees' annuities by --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not a COLA adjustment, just
that one-time --
MR. JAGOU: Just that one time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if we were to consider
doing it again, you didn't present any number for that?
MR. JAGOU: I -- I don't have numbers in this
presentation, but I do have COLA rates. I believe they are --
B-14-OE
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
if you look over on the rate portion on page -- the numbered
kind of COLA's that you can pass -- did you find it, sir? And
those are a flat rate, 1 to 4 percent increase. In other
words, you know, if it's $1,000, and you pass a 4 percent,
they get a 40 -- a $40 bump, for the folks that have $1,000.
Or, again, you could pass a CPI-based COLA. Basically, you
have passed a CPI-based COLA recently, and it was a 50 percent
CPI-based COLA. What that means is, for the folks that
retired a long time ago, if you will, their $1,000 that they
had in 1985, let's say, isn't going to be worth the same
$1,000 they have now, because their purchasing power has been
cut significantly. So, by passing a CPI-based COLA -- in this
case, it was 50 percent -- you have pretty much increased
their buying power an additional 50 percent. So, it greatly
affects the folks that have been retired longer. For the
folks that haven't been retired as long, within the past two,
three years of retirement, their increase won't be as much,
because -- because the Consumer Price Index inflation hadn't
increased as much as it had for the folks that have retired,
say, 10, 15 years ago. But, yes, that is a permanent
increase, and it is -- you know, it is now calculated as part
of the -- of the contribution rate. And, so, if you -- if you
pass another COLA, then, again, that will be permanently added
a-ie-oF
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the contribution rate for -- for next year and future years
as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If I understand correctly,
if that were to be -- if the Court were to consider doing
that, that's an additional quarter of a point; is that
correct?
MR. JAGOU: It really -- for 50 percent, if you
decided to do another 50 percent CPI, it would be .14 percent.
And, again, the rates are going to vary, depending on which --
on which COLA you want to pass. If we do the CPI-based --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see the chart now.
MR. JAGOU: And then the flat rate's from 1 to
4 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. JAGOU: Sure. Now, one thing that --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'd just like to make sure
I'm clear on the buy-back.
MR. JAGOU: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This says the last buy-back
we authorized was in 2003.
MR. JAGOU: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, anybody who left county
employment before that and withdrew their deposits, and came
-- comes back to work now has the option of --
MR. JAGOU: No, it would be the folks that came back
8-19-Ob
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
before 2003.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's what I'm saying.
MR. JAGOU: Right. Not the folks now.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If somebody left in the
90's, withdrew their deposits, came back to work now, they
could redeposit --
MR. JAGOU: They -- they wouldn't be able to
participate in the buy-back because they came back -- they
came back after the buy-back was performed.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But my understanding is that
they can buy it back, but also, the time that they served
prior to is reinstated.
MR. JAGOU: The time is reinstated automatically
when they come back. Say if they have five years; they're
going to walk in with five years service, and that's
reinstated automatically.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We start picking back up
again.
MR. JAGOU: Exactly. That's exactly correct. Now,
I will say this, though. For the folks that come back after
the buy-back, they have the option of what we call an optional
deposit, where they can put in what they have withdrawn, plus
the interest they would have earned, plus the match that Kerr
County would provide, which in this case is 190 percent,
8 19-U6
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
anywhere from zero to whatever that total amount is. It's a
one-time deal. But if they do that, if they do participate in
that, then they forego their eligibility to participate in a
future buy-back.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think we currently have a
situation where a -- a reemployed person may be eligible and
want to exercise that eligibility. What's the -- the
administrative process for doing that?
MR. JAGOU: The best thing to do is for them to give
our customer service number a call, and then customer service
will calculate how much they would have to put back in. We
would calculate up in Austin how much that person would put
back in.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know about the rest of you
gentlemen, but I'd like to see some more numbers. I realize,
number one, this has budgetary impact, and I'd like to
calculate those roughly. We also need to see what effect the
contribution rate generally is going to cost, and I'd like to
see what the financial consequences of these other options are
before we make a decision. So, I -- I'd like to see what the
buy-back issue is.
MR. JAGOU: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'd like to see -- we've got the
information on the COLA's. That -- that's --
MR. JAGOU: I can provide you --
8-14-06
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: -- plugged in the computation, but if
If there's a specific
COLA -- we usually provide you with a 100 percent CPI
automatically, but if there's a specific CPI-based or a
flat-rate COLA that you guys would want to look at, just let
Barbara know, and she'll contact me, and I'll be more than
happy to -- those take about two weeks to do. And one thing I
will say, and this is something that we at T.C.D.R.S. are
trying to get our counties and departments more involved with,
and that's what we call paying a higher elected rate. Even
though your contribution rate's -- say, if you don't do
anything, is 8.12, we think it's a really good idea if -- of
course, if counties and districts are able to do it, to go
ahead and pay a little extra in; let's say pay up to, like,
8.25 or 8.35 percent. Because what we -- paying a higher
elected rate, what you can do is, you're going to prefund
future benefit increases, so when the time does come to go
ahead and -- and make those -- whether it's a COLA or a lower
retirement eligibility or adding partial lump-sum, whatever
the case may be, by prefunding those, and -- and in previous
years, the cost won't be nearly as much, because you've
already prefunded them.
And it also helps for budgeting purposes, because
you know the flat rate, how much you're going to pay over a
e-i9-o6
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
year. It makes it a little easier. And we have -- out of
everyone in our system -- we do have the charts here. Pardon
me. We have about -- we have a little under 600 in the whole
system, and we have about a little over 100 that do make a
higher -- that do pay a higher elected rate, and that's on
Page 6, the chart about how much those folks pay. In fact, I
know that the emergency district here, the 9-1-1 district that
is a member of T.C.D.R.S., they do pay a higher elected rate
as well, and by doing so, over the past few years they've
actually been able to increase their match -- or they're
thinking about increasing the -- the employer matching rate
for the next year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One other question.
MR. JAGOU: Yes?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you drive down here from
Austin this morning?
MR. JAGOU: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, while you're here, you
wouldn't mind visiting with the -- maybe if there's a couple
of employees that would like to visit for a few minutes?
MR. JAGOU: Oh, I would be more than happy to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. Thank you
very much.
MR. JAGOU: So, just before I -- you want to make --
you want the buy-back study, Judge, and you also want a COLA
8-19-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
study as well?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, in addition to what you've
already provided.
MR. JAGOU: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And I think that's pretty well the
gamut of options that we don't have in place; would that not
be correct?
MR. JAGOU: That is correct. Obviously, other
options you have is that you could always increase or decrease
the matching rate, and we did have a legislative change last
year. In the past, you could on]y increase it 25 basis
points, and if you made the increase, it was for past deposits
and future deposits. Well, now what we've done is we've said,
okay, we're going to -- if you're going to increase, you can
increase now in 5-basis-point increments. You don't have to
do the whole 25 basis points. And you can increase based on
future only deposits, or make it future and retroactively as
well. So, you guys have a lot more flexibility when it comes
to increasing the employer matching rate as well.
JUDGE TINLEY: Could you give us -- in the study
that you're going to do, can you give us some examples of
that?
MR. JAGOU: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: That might --
MR. JAGOU: Absolutely.
8-19-Ot
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE TINLEY: -- crystallize it better for us as we
look at it.
MR. JAGOU: Absolutely. Sure, I'll be more than
happy to.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just another option we'd have, would
it not?
MR. JAGOU: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you build in -- or get with
our Auditor or Treasurer and get the payroll numbers so we can
get the dollar impact to our budget?
MR. JAGOU: Okay. Well, that's -- I guess she
should be able to provide that for you, but I'll give her --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the calculation as to -- for
each of these options, what the --
MR. JAGOU: -- I'll give her the rates, and then
she'll -- I'm sure that she'll be able to calculate that for
you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, there's a question
here.
MR. CHAPMAN: I just was wondering if I might
attempt to answer Commissioner Nicholson's question about
motivation of the Court to consider -- I didn't know about the
other option on changing the eligibility requirements. Of
course, my -- my issue, of course, is partial lump sum
distribution.
B-14-06
66
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
°~- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
°` 24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. Are you through with
MR. JAGOU: Yes, sir. I'm more than happy to answer
Any member of the Court have
any questions? Mr. Chapman, we'll be happy to hear from you,
if you'll give us your name and address and --
MR. CHAPMAN: Gary Chapman, P.O. Box 408, Ingram.
I'd also like to speak to the gentleman after the -- these
things, too. I wanted to address Commissioner Nicholson's
question on what motivation the Court might have to consider
at least this one option, and possibly two. The main thing
is, it is another benefit that can be offered, obviously, to
the employee, and which may or may not be a good thing,
depending on point of view. On this partial lump sum
distribution, one thing that can be done with that, that -- in
the -- particularly in my particular case, and it would hold
true for everybody else too, I'm sure, those moneys -- like
you talked about if I had $100,000 on my -- in my part of the
account. Well, that is, true enough, my money. What my
interest is is being able to get that money in my hand, and
that will become part of my estate should something happen to
me, and my beneficiary -- it would be passed along to whoever
I deem fit to give it to. The other thing, I can invest that
in -- you know, in any manner that I'd like to. Now, granted,
8-19-U6
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one of the first rules of investment is that past performance
is not an indicator of future performance. We understand
that. There are risks. But I can also take that money and
get a few more points of return on that money than I can
with -- say, with the 7 percent. And that's not guaranteed,
like he's talking about, but I can get several more points of
return on my money, and that's my particular interest, along
with holding that money in control myself. I just want to get
the best bang for my buck that I can, which, at the point of
retirement, I need. Which is the issue -- the reason I
brought this up to the County Judge in the first place. And
that -- that's my whole point. The motivation will be
strictly the benefit for the employee, and which we all would
benefit from that. And that would -- that would be all that I
could add to that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When I worked in the
private sector, my company offered a lump-sum option. You can
have a pension or you can have a lump sum. No one ever took a
pension. All -- everybody always took the lump sum. Not one
in 10,000 took a pension.
MR. CHAPMAN: Well, there are people, I suppose,
that would -- they can't stand to see that money sitting there
and not be able to get their hands on it. And they would have
actually quit their job just so they can get it. Now, there's
nothing to keep anybody from doing that. There's nothing to
B-14 06
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
keep anybody on retirement from drawing that lump sum --
partial lump sum and then blow it. You just -- there's just
nothing you can do about that. Myself, personally, I --
that's certainly not my intention. I wouldn't cut my own
throat, so to speak, but that could be done. That would --
that could happen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Are there any other
questions about this by any member of the Court? we
appreciate your assistance, and if you'd be kind enough to put
those things together for us?
MR. JAGOU: Sure. I'm at y'all's service if you
guys have any questions.
JUDGE TINLEY: We hate to put you on a short fuse,
but these things that we're dealing with have budgetary
impact. I know we've got generally until -- I believe it's
December 15th to make a final election?
MR. JAGOU: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: But with the budgetary impact, we
need to know what these things are going to be.
MR. JAGOU: We have until October 15th to do a
buy-back, so obviously, we have plenty of time to get that in
as well. So, I'll be more than happy to -- since Barbara is
my official contact, I will -- as soon as it's ready, I will
pass that on to her. I'm sure she will pass it along to
y'all, as well as the information as far as budgetary
R 1 4 O ti
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
information with payroll that she'll be able to calculate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You mentioned a two-week
turnaround? We'd be real --
MR. JAGOU: It will be two weeks for the COLA study.
I'm not sure what it is for the buy-back, but I will let
Barbara know exactly as to the buy-back.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have a meeting in two weeks.
It'd be nice to have it by then.
I
MR. JAGOU: Okay. I will definitely make a note of
that, and try and get them --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
MR. JAGOU: -- try and get them to do that. Here
you are, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Appreciate that.
MR. CHAPMAN: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Chapman, you had something else
you wanted to offer?
MR. CHAPMAN: I want to ask you a question. You and
I have talked about this before, that we've got -- I think --
I don't know if it's December, but on this particular issue,
the -- is it December or October that you need to -- for the
partial lump sum?
MR. JAGOU: For the partial lump sum, by
December 15th. It's the buy-back study that we have to
provide by October 15th, but we'll possibly not go to the
8-19-06
1
-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
70
MR. CHAPMAN: Well, my issue is that I'm kind of
under the gun myself, because I am attempting to retire right
after the first of the year, first week or so of January, for
reasons -- instead of December 31st, I'm waiting till after
the first of January. I'm kind of under the gun on that as
far as this issue, because, if I'm not mistaken, it takes at
least a month, maybe little bit more, for all that paperwork.
MR. JAGOU: The way the retirement works, you would
retire -- first of all, whatever changes you do make, if any,
will not go into effect until January 1, 2007. But you can
retire on the last day of any month, so your retirement
wouldn't be until the 31st, if you decided to retire in
January, and then you would go ahead and get that first check
in -- you'd get your first check by February 20.
MR. CHAPMAN: My question was, as far as the
may or may not be to me, myself, with this partial lump sum
distribution. It may or may not help me. It would be a -- I
need to provide my advisers with those numbers from T.C.D.R.S.
And I can't get those estimates, so I'm told, from T.C.D.R.S.
until Kerr County actually passes that provision. I've tried
to ask for just an estimate so I can plan ahead for what I'm
looking at, and they said, "Well, we can't do that until Kerr
8-14-06
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
County passes that." I'm not asking that you -- that they do
it; just give me an idea. If it is or is not passed, I'll
know where I'm standing. And, so, that's the reason I'm kind
of under the gun on this. I understand you're not. But,
anyway, I would urge you to try to do that at the earliest
convenience.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Chapman, we are under the gun in
the sense that if this is going to have budgetary impact in --
in our next year's budget, we want to know that as soon as
possible so that we can figure out what impact that's going to
be, whether or not it fits within -- within our resources and
so forth. And -- and we want to know these things as soon as
possible so we can, in turn, make a decision as soon as
possible, which then gets you closer to your goal of knowing
what you -- what you need to do.
MR. CHAPMAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it will -- I'm not going
to plan on voting on something like -- to do something like
that after our first meeting in September, so you've got --
you know, if we don't have the numbers by then, it's off till
next year, in my mind. Just 'cause it does have budgetary
impact. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. JAGOU: Thank you, sir. Did you want to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're a little bit past our
8-19-06
1
'.' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
°°~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'" 2 4
25
72
mid-morning break time. Why don't we take a 10-, 15-minute
recess, and we'll reconvene after that.
(Recess taken from 10:34 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order, if we
were in recess for a bit. We've got a significant
discuss, and take appropriate action to authorize the County
Judge to write a letter to L.C.R.A. regarding Rim Rock to Goat
Creek 1138 kV project in Kerr County requesting them to take
the shortest and least expensive route. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, sir. Two weeks
ago, I tried, at the urging of some of my constituents, to
oppose the whole system, and I tried that with a resolution,
and a majority of the citizens in the county chose not to
participate. So, I was wrong there. And, believe it or not,
from that, some of the people that had asked me to do that, I
got a couple of ugly letters from them, saying ugly things
about me and this Court. And I thought, well -- I thought,
well, okay. I'm -- you know, I'm a nice guy. So far. And
thought I'd try again. So, I understand L.C.R.A. will put --
basically put the program together, but the final word is the
Public Utility Commission in Austin will make the final
decision. And I got -- a little bird from that arena told me
e-i9-oE
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that P.U.C. likes the words "shortest and least expensive
route"; that they would be more -- they'd be a little more
conducive to that. This kind of language is nicer and kinder
and gentler. And so I thought, well, that would be a good
route as well. Well, I've had the hell kicked out of me over
this one, so I'm pulling this, Judge, and this will be my last
attempt to assist the public in this issue. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We had a number of
participation forms filed on this particular issue. In the
interest of time, I would hope that those that are speaking on
the issue -- certainly, we want to hear their viewpoints, but
to the extent they are repetitive of others who have spoken,
we hope that you would condense your remarks as much as
possible. We don't want to put you in a position where you're
not heard; we want to -- we want to hear from everybody that
wants to be heard on this issue. Mr. Peter Mitchell? Are you
present, sir?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, I am.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. If you'll come
forward, give us your name and address and whatever you wish
to say with regard to this subject, we'll be happy to hear
You.
MR. MITCHELL: I'll be brief. This is -- my name is
Peter Mitchell. I live at 299 Wren Road in Kerrville. This
whole proposal is a lot like a refinery; everybody wants what
8-14-06
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
comes out of it, but nobody wants the refinery in their back
yard. From our -- my point of view, and those on my
particular street, it's far too early in the process to make a
decision or make a recommendation as a unit. We need more
information. We're hopefully diligently gathering that
information before we can make any recommendation. And we
would appreciate it if you would not consider -- or not go
ahead with the provision as outlined. It's too early in the
process, and there's a -- a lot more information that needs to
be forthcoming. And that's my particular opinion. I open the
floor. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Mr. Robby Robertson?
MR. ROBERTSON: I wasn't sure what we would have
here. I'll leave these up on a chair, perhaps, to make sure
that we have proper reference. Excuse me a second. I have
copies of -- handouts of all this, which I -- as a matter of
fact, if you like, I might give them to you now, because it'll
have maps that you can refer to.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's enough here?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. ROBERTSON: Judge Tinley and Commissioners, I
appreciate this opportunity. My name is Robby Robertson. You
may recall that I sent you a letter dated 31 May outlining my
b-19 06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7s
concern about the routes A and C. My concern was a macro
impact on The Horizon, Saddlewood Subdivision, visual impact
on the Guadalupe River, and risk to the tax base of the city
of Kerrville and Kerr County. Such tax base is approximately
$100 million in the current County tax roll. A great deal's
been said about the shortest and cheapest routes. The
shortest route proposed -- of the proposed routes depends on
where you land. If you land up here and join at the end of P,
where it's P and T, the shortest route is A-C-P. However, if
you go out here and land at B, the shortest route is Al-B,
across the back and up there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Robby, which one of these
maps are we looking at here?
MR. ROBERTSON: You can -- the next one up. The
next map. The first one is just a -- a grid I left you for
reference, so you can see what the thing is. The second map,
if you look at it, there are two mapped -- three routes that
are highlighted on this. One is A-C, and to the river, that
picks up P at the river and goes on across. The other one is
a green one, which goes across A, crosses The Horizon, goes
out across the field, goes back of Saddlewood, and comes out
and goes back in through here. That's this map right here,
colored map. Just as a matter of reference, I put in the back
map, which shows you a more detailed intersection of those
routes with The Horizon, so that you can see basically where
A-19 U6
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
they are. So, basically, the shortest route which has been
proposed by them is the alternate route A-C-P, which is
6.68 miles. If the juncture is going to be at the west, the W
over there, the shortest route is 7.61 miles. And this,
therefore, says you need to decide where you're going to land
out here and put those substations and connect to that link
before you decide what's the cheapest and shortest route.
For reference, the -- I'm not sure it's shown on
this map. Yes, I guess it is, right here. There is a line
that comes right in here now that connects from Turtle Creek
and comes up here to feed that system route. And I put into
this write-up here that that transmission line is 7.6 miles
long, and it's the primary feed currently. I might point out
that one of the alternates in the -- like we're playing for
2003-2012, is, quote, that Alternate 3 is upgrading the
existing 7.6 miles there to a double circuit configuration. I
don't -- I'm in no position to offer an opinion about the
technical and cost justification for this project. I'm not a
transmission line guy. Or the alternate routes as it relates
to technical or operational issues regarding the construction,
or the right-of-way cost acquisitions, or the potential
damages awards.
In 2000, after about 45 years in this industry, I
retired here and built a home out in The Horizon. My last
major assignment, I was the president of a subsidiary who had
s-i4-oF
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-'-~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a contract to execute the United States high-level nuclear
waste disposal project. The multi-billion-dollar program was
to technically evaluate the options, design of the system,
taking all spent nuclear fuel rods from U.S. commercial
reactors and disposing of them in an underground repository at
Yucca Mountain at the Nevada test site. In this role, I
became intimately familiar with NIMB, Not In My Backyard.
Under federal law, the state of Nevada was funded to oppose
',I this federal program which I was managing. Now, I endorse the
right and applaud the right of individuals or groups to oppose
routes that have a negative impact on their property. I am,
however, appalled that groups would organize to recommend the
sacrifice of their subdivision neighbors' property rather than
their own. This is truly the dark side of NIMB. I do not
support this Commission recommendation, because in my
judgment, that route represents the most significant damage to
Kerr County and the City of Kerrville. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me ask you, if I might --
MR. ROBERTSON: I'll leave these here.
ends up, shortest routes?
MR. ROBERTSON: I didn't say that. What I said
b-19-06
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
been hammered. I've been hammered big-time, because I sent
that letter in the beginning, and I mailed out 92 letters to
the landowners along this Route C that comes out here. But
you -- right here, comes out here, goes across here, angles
out and goes down, goes right in front of Saddlewood after
passing in front of The Horizon. And the reason I mailed that
out was that people were unaware that that line was going to
be coming down through there, and so I mailed those letters
out and I asked those people, get the impact on your property
into the system for Mr. Palafox. That's what I asked. And I
personally said in my letter to the Commissioners and the
Judge that I believe that that Route A-C was the biggest
negative impact on the county. That's the only position I
took. Other questions?
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. ROBERTSON: I'll leave this up here for whoever
might want to point.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Robertson. We
appreciate that. Mr. Roy Kilgore.
MR. KILGORE: My name's Roy Kilgore. I live at 118
Canter Lane in the county. Judge, Commissioners, I appreciate
the time, but the agenda has been changed. Mr. Robertson
spoke eloquently already on matters that I would like to
B-14-06
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
present to this Court two weeks hence. I intended to do that
today, but discovered that the courtroom -- the courthouse,
indeed, has no overhead projector. So, I have projection
images of this information and a great deal more information
which I think it would be good for you to see and for the
audience present to see, but we can't do that today. So, I'm
going to ask to appear again in a couple weeks, and somehow or
another, I'll show up with my overhead projector. But I, in
the meantime, would like the Court to consider coughing up a
few bucks of the discretionary money in equipping the
courthouse with an overhead projector and a few spare bulbs.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How about a drop-down
screen?
MR. KILGORE: Yeah, it would be nice to do that, and
one that was a little less fractious. The Sheriff almost got
thrown to the floor trying to deal with that one a while ago.
~' I would like to make one comment that I think probably wasn't
clear from Mr. Robertson's point of view. L.C.R.A. apparently
is, by rule, required to notify landowners who have property
within 300 feet of a proposed right-of-way center line. They
have no requirement to notify anyone else. That's what
Mr. Robertson realized and took measures to mitigate.
Virtually the whole north side of the river will be able to
see this line. Those constituents should have a voice
somehow. It either comes through the city or through you or
fl-19 OG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
through both agencies. Thanks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Mr. Tom Michaels?
MR. MICHAELS: Yes. And I --
JUDGE TINLEY: Come forward, please and let us --
MR. MICHAELS: I want to thank you very much, first
of all, for hearing me. I'm going to make it quick and short.
As you've heard from the last two people, they basically have
got different plans, different issues. There's a lot to be
studied. There's a lot of issues that have to be brought
forth, and I think we need to have more from L.C.R.A. And
what I'm -- what I'm saying right now is that it's too quick
to make a judgment, and we should be studying this a little
bit further. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Michaels, could you give
us your address, please.
MR. MICHAELS: I have two addresses. My one address
is 135 Conestoga Trail, Hunt, Texas, which is up in the River
Bend area. And I also live on -- I have other properties on
Wren Road. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wren Road?
MR. MICHAELS: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Mr. Tom Torget? Help me
with the pronunciation. Did I get it --
MR. TORGET: Torget.
JUDGE TINLEY: Torget?
B-19-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
MR. TORGET: Torget. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll give us your address,
~ please?
MR. TORGET: I'm at 264 St. Mark's Path here in
Kerrville, which is within The Horizon Subdivision. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Court. I represent
a group called the Horizon Owners Protecting our Environment.
The Rim Rock station is within our subdivision, so, clearly,
we're going to be impacted in some way. We've got two dots
that we need to connect, and one of them is -- is within The
Horizon, so clearly, we understand that we're going to have an
impact. The L.C.R.A. has proposed three routes from the Rim
Rock station; A, essentially, B, and B-1. A goes north to the
northeast corner of the subdivision, and then goes in a
northwest fashion and connects to C. The Horizon Owners'
Association, which is the typical association of any
subdivision, took up the matter of whether they should take a
position with respect to the these varying possibilities, and
there was a rather heated discussion among the board members.
One of the board members threatened to sue the other board
members if they were to take a position. As a consequence of
that threat, the board opted to remain in -- in a neutral
position with respect to any of the options that L.C.R.A. has
so far identified.
As a consequence of that inaction by the homeowners'
8-19-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
association, the residents in The Horizon formed a new group
which is called the Horizon -- is called the Horizon Owners
Protecting our Environment, or HOPE. We circulated, a couple
of weeks ago, a -- a, you know, petition to go to Mr. Dennis
Palafox asking the L.C.R.A. to adopt one of its specific
proposals; that is, A and C. Most petitions say I'm opposed
to this or I'm opposed to do this. This one was different.
We said we want you to go ahead and use one of the routes that
you've identified, and at the same time, in doing that, we
want you to discontinue your consideration of Routes B and
B-1. B -- Route B would go all the way around the --
essentially the eastern boundary and the southern boundary of
the subdivision. Route B-1 would go across the middle of the
subdivision and across our main road in and out. We collected
a lot of signatures. In fact, 83 percent of all property
owners within the subdivision signed that petition, which I
think is an overwhelming majority, and makes it very clear
that the people who live in that subdivision want Route A and
C.
A very similar petition was circulated among the
residents of Highlands Ranch and Bear Paw Ranch, and also the
Bear Creek area. And those petitions achieved an equal -- or
a very similar positive response from the people who live in
those -- who live in those areas, and those petitions have
also gone to Mr. Palafox. We think that the Court should
e ie-oE
1
.... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
n 24
25
83
advocate the shortest and cheapest route. All ratepayers in
the L.C.R.A. service area bear the expense of this project;
it's not borne strictly by the people served by this
particular project. Therefore, every ratepayer within the
county has a stake in the decision that the L.C.R.A.
recommends to the P.U.C., which is the final authority. So,
shortest and cheapest we think is just good public policy, and
we'd like to see the Court get in the corner of shortest and
cheapest, because that's in the best interests of all the
ratepayers within the county.
I'd like to add one more point, and then I'll sit
down. One of the speakers this morning has told the Court
about his interest in protecting the interests of the county
at large by bringing light to the fact that Route C would be,
in his opinion, detrimental to the county. He certainly has a
right to his opinion. The rest of the story is that that
speaker's -- one of his very best friends, if not his best
friend, has recently acquired a lot of property in the -- the
area that would be traversed by Route C. That land is not
developed. He has plans, we understand, to, you know, develop
it, but it's not developed now. And it is widely perceived
that that is the primary driver for this previous speaker's
position against C. I also believe it's correct to say that
that speaker is on record with Mr. Palafox endorsing Route
B-1, which is the route that would be most disruptive to the
8-19-On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
subdivision, going right through the middle of it and crossing
the main road in and out. So, I think it's important to
understand that there may be a little more to the -- to the
story about Route C not being the greatest thing for Kerr
County or for the city. I think there are some other
motivations. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to
respond. Otherwise, I thank you for your time, and would
encourage you to adopt the motion that Mr. Baldwin has talked
about.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any questions for Mr. Torget? Thank
you, sir. We appreciate it.
MR. ROBERTSON: May I respond to that allegation?
JUDGE TINLEY: Why does this not surprise me? Yes,
sir, if you'd be brief.
MR. ROBERTSON: Robby Robertson. Oh, very brief.
Point one. My opinion with regard to the A-C route's negative
impact on the county is unchanged. Always has been unchanged
from when it started. The fact that I happen to be friends
with McRae Energy owner, Rick McRae, whose Block 2 and 3
properties here, one would be decimated by the A leg, and the
fact that he has a piece of property back over here, off here
on the other side of Los Rincones Preserve, are irrelevant.
And this is -- this is perceptions which are not borne out by
fact. Two, I have had numerous discussions with Mr. Palafox,
his engineering people, and his supervisor. In those
8-19-0~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
conversations, I've only advocated that I thought that there
were only two routes out of that subdivision that would --
would minimally impact The Horizon. One was the B-1 route,
only if it went underground that six-tenths of a mile. And if
you look at the -- the last page of our handout, you'll see
what I'm talking about, six-tenths of a mile underground. The
other one that I recommended to him is to go back out the way
you came in; i.e., Alternate 3 of that plan. That's all I
have to say.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Mr. Dennis Palafox?
MR. PALAFOX: Judge, Commissioners, my name's Dennis
Palafox with L.C.R.A. My address is Post Office Box 220 in
Austin. First, I'd like to -- Commissioner Baldwin,
Mr. Robertson, if you think you've been beat on, I've been
beat on as well myself. But the first thing I wanted to say
is that the public involvement and public input is a very
important part of routing an electric transmission line, so we
appreciate the input that the County has and that all these
citizens have testified -- talked about today. In fact, I've
talked to -- either met with them personally or visited with
them on the phone or exchanged e-mails with all these folks.
So, it's a very important part of the process. I'd like to
explain to you where we are in this process, and that is that
when you're receiving all this public input -- and what we're
trying to do, we don't have routes yet. We have segments as
a-i9 oti
1
~. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
°"' 2 4
25
86
proposed on these maps, and we're taking input from the public
So, we don't have a route -- we don't have a
favorite route or anything like that yet. We're in the
process of developing that. And very soon, once we -- we put
these routes -- piece these segments together to form a route,
we'll be evaluating them for criteria according to the Public
Utility Commission regulations. Land use, environmental
criteria. LCRA will look at it from the standpoint of design,
constructability, maintenance, and cost. Once we do that
process, we will come up with a preferred route and alternate
routes that we will then submit in our application to the
Public Utility Commission. That application -- right now, we
anticipate submitting that application in December of this
year, and when we submit the application, we will notify
homeowners -- landowners within 300 feet of any of those
alternate routes. Those folks not directly notified will then
-- we have public notices that we'll put -- advertise the
project and the application once a week for two weeks
immediately after the -- the application is submitted.
We will also, in those notifications, tell the
8-19-06
1
_. 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"- 2 4
25
87
homeowners and landowners who are directly affected how they
can become intervenors in this process in front of the Public
And as Commissioner Baldwin pointed out, the Public
route -- whether or not the project is approved and which
route is selected. So, in summary, I think we've got -- we
believe that this project is very important. It's necessary
for the folks served by KPUB and CTC out of the Rim Rock
that substation. And it also is a benefit to the electric
folks in Kerr County. So, appreciate the opportunity to talk
with you, and if you've got any questions, I'd be happy to
answer them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Palafox, if I understand what
various routes will be identified and proposed as primary or
preferred and secondary/alternate routes, and until then,
we're not sure where this thing's going to go?
MR. PALAFOX: That's correct. The preferred and
8-19-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
""' 2 4
25
88
alternate routes will not be proposed until we get it in the
application. We'll be studying routes, piecing them together
and studying them up till that time, but until it's in an
application, we will not know for sure what's preferred and
what's alternate. That's correct, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: And you will be seeking
before that time, from all the folks in the area that might
have some desired input?
MR. PALAFOX: That's right. We're still in the
public input stage, but we're going to have to start making
some decisions, again, as I mentioned, what to keep, what to
delete, what to add, what to modify. And it takes time.
We'll be doing a routing analysis, an environmental
assessment, which is going to take at least two months to do,
so in order to make the proposed application submittal date of
December, we're really fast reaching that time of taking
input.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just want to make a final
comment -- thank you, sir -- that there's still a lot of folks
out there that feel like this Commissioners Court needs to
take the place of P.U.C. We don't have any authority, don't
have any voting power, but I think it's awful nice of you
gentlemen to sit here through two meetings now to give the
public an opportunity to voice their concerns, and I
a-i9 0~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
89
appreciate it. And that's that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I'm glad you
put this on the agenda. I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you really?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with you; we
probably have very little ability to persuade the P.U.C. on
the final outcome of it. But I also think it's good and it's
appropriate that the various factions are having an
opportunity to be heard, and I think we'll hear -- hear more
about it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: On the other issue of
shortest and cheapest, that's got to appeal to me; I'm cheap.
But cheapest, as you know, is not always best.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, for whatever my opinion
counts, which is probably very little, I'm also hoping to hear
about the attributes of other locations, not just shortest and
cheapest.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other member of the Court have
any remarks to make?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The opposite of that is,
let's build it as long as and far as we can, and spend all the
a-i9 oe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
money we can, you know. That's the other side of it. That's
all, Judge. Get me out of here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I apologize, we had a
10 o'clock timed item that I had missed, and I'm going to go
back and pick that one up as well as an 11 o'clock, and
hopefully we can dispose of them shortly and get back on
track. At this time, I will recess the Commissioners Court
meeting, and I will convene a public hearing concerning the
abandoning, vacating, and discontinuing of Privilege Creek
Subdivision, as recorded in Volume 7, Pages 136 and 137, and
located in Precinct 3.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 11:20 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any member of the public
that wishes to be heard on the issue of abandoning, vacating,
and discontinuing the Privilege Creek Subdivision as that
subdivision is recorded in Volume 7, Pages 136 and 137?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Seeing no one moving forward to
address that issue -- I see some moving the reverse direction,
but I see no one moving forward -- I will close the public
hearing concerning the action to abandon vacate, and
discontinue Privilege Creek Subdivision, as recorded in Volume
7, Page 136 and 137.
8 19-OE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
(The public hearing was concluded at 11:21 a.m., and
the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: And I will reconvene the
Commissioners Court meeting, and I will take us to Item 11,
which was a timed item for 11 o'clock. It's a bit past that
now. I'll call that item. That's a request for a variance in
the requirements for an on-site septic facility for a dwelling
to be located at Lot 24, Wood Trails Ranch.
MR. JOHNSON: Morning, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Johnson. And your address,
please, sir?
MR. JOHNSTON: My address is 2235 San Jacinto Drive,
I Kerrville.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MR. JOHNSTON: And I am building a residence out in
the county up on top of a hill. It's on top of a hill;
there's very little soil there, and so from the very
beginning, I determined I was going to make a very small
septic system demand. In other words, the demand on the
septic system. For example, I'm using a rainwater collection
system. I'm going to have a dry composting toilet. I'll also
use a gray water system so that I can use the gray water to
water my grass, garden, or anything that will grow on that
rock. So, the only thing that actually ends up hooked up to
8-19-G6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
92
my septic system is the kitchen sink. My personal habits are
that 99 percent or more of that -- more than that of my meals
are eaten out. For example, I haven't eaten breakfast in my
house this entire year, so the demand at the kitchen sink is
going to be very, very minimal. Yet the requirements from the
state don't allow anything -- or don't allow a reduction in
size if you have a gray water system or if you have a dry
toilet, or if you're not going to wash very many dishes. They
still say that you've got to have a system that's this big.
And that's the basis for my request. I don't want
to build a system this big. I am willing to build a system
this big. Their minimum requirements is for 180 gallons a
day. I and my engineer have designed a system for 40 gallons
a day. And at no time in the foreseeable future, at least
while I'm alive or my children are alive, because they'll
occupy the building after I go, will I ever get to 40 gallons
a day on the septic system. Now, the County Environmental
Health Department righteously turned down our request, because
the state rules make no allowance for a smaller system.
That's the reason for my appearance before you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me ask a question here.
Maybe you can answer, or Miguel or whoever. I think I
understand the state says if you're going to build a septic
system, you've got to build it this big, whatever that is.
Can you opt not to build a septic system?
b-19 06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
93
MR. JOHNSTON: Only -- Miguel?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. If he's going to be
producing wastewater, you have to have a septic system. If
that's your question.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, it is. And I'm --
I'm wondering if that's really the case. Out in my neck of
the woods, we probably have a few hundred deer camps that
don't have septic systems. They opted -- opted not to have
one.
MR. ARREOLA: Well, they're required to have it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They are?
MR. ARREOLA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You probably don't want to open
that one up. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not sure the answer is
correct. I'm not sure -- I know that if you're going to have
-- build a septic system, it has to be licensed and has to be
built to T.C.E.Q. standards, but I'm not sure you have to have
a septic system. And in the case of the way he's building his
house, he might opt not to have one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you have -- is an
appropriate -- I mean, can you have a holding tank that has to
get pumped?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, a holding tank, if it meets all
the requirements. Yes, it's a possibility. It has to qualify
B-19 06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
99
for that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Instead of a drain field.
MR. ARREOLA: Instead of a drain field.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Arreola?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: What is the extent of our ability, if
any, to grant a variance from the state rules which we've
adopted for O.S.S.F.?
MR. ARREOLA: It's probably an attorney's question.
We are mandated by state law. We adopted minimum state
standards. If we want to do anything different than -- I
don't know what the attorney has to say to it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's my understanding that
you can make the rules stronger, but you can't make them
weaker.
MR. ARREOLA: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's my understanding,
too. Is there a provision in the regulations that --
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- that you would -- that a
holding tank could be an option, as opposed to a drain field?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, it is, but it has certain
requirements and need to qualify. Basically needs to be
there's no possibility of installing a septic system because
of soil conditions or anything else.
e-i9-oF
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, it sounds like that is
the case. So, my question to this gentleman is, is a holding
tank a viable option?
MR. ARREOLA: He does have soil there. He has the
possibility of installing a septic, and the plans were for a
septic system. The only problem is, is the septic was
undersized. So, he can have a septic in there with his land,
but he wants it smaller than required. That is his variance
request, to make it smaller.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, we don't have the
authority to grant a waiver. That's pretty clear to us.
MR. JOHNSTON: I thank you very much.
MR. WIEDENFELD: May I speak on that? Or is this
I closed?
JUDGE TINLEY: You got some input? You've obviously
got some expertise in the business.
MR. WIEDENFELD: Charles Wiedenfeld, Center Point,
Texas. I -- I did the design work and am representing
Mr. Johnson, and I'll take several exceptions. The state
septic regulations do grant the Commissioners Court the
ability to grant variances. And their designated
representative can do it also. And if he does not do it, the
Commissioners Court is our second line of requesting a
variance. And the variance, we -- as the designer, I have to
show to his satisfaction, and then if not to his satisfaction,
8 1 9 0 6
96
1
°` 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
°" 2 4
25
to y'all that I have provided equal protection to the
environment or equal protection for a septic system. I -- my
equal protection was that he is -- to the volume or the flow
of anticipated waste load of 40 gallons a day, it was he was
going to be using rainwater. Which I think, to me,
establishes pretty well that he does not have the volume of
water that would be necessary to use any more than 40 gallons
a day. And if he lives in the house by himself, and he's only
going to be having, at the time I did the design, a toilet --
he said, "I'd like to have a toilet and the kitchen sink.
Kitchen sink," he says, "I rarely use, if I do, because I eat
out all the time. And if not, I could put it in a bucket and
clean anything, and we'll take it outside."
The other is a toilet. I figured if we flushed it
10 times a day, 1.67 gallons, that's 16 gallons, and that left
him another 24 gallons a day to be used for the septic system,
or 40 gallons in a septic. The other provision for equal
protection that I wasn't going to contaminate any of the
aquifer or contaminate the environment was that we're putting
this in a self-contained disposal field, an ET evaporative
system, lined ET. I went to the extent of going into a septic
drain field that would not leak, does not go anywhere but
evaporate. There is no impact on the environment, and so I
think I've met all reasonable and justifiable variance -- and
equivalent protection measures that are provided in the state
8-19-06
97
1
°° 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
..- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
exception to that. And I've shown him on Page 39 that the --
in designing an ET system, the -- in the language in there, it
says the owner of the ET system shall be advised by the person
preparing the planning materials of the limits placed on the
system by the waste load selected. If the waste load is less
than required by Chapter blab-blab-blab of this title, the
flow rate shall be included as a condition to the permit and
stated in an affidavit properly filed and recorded in the deed
records of the county, as evidenced in Chapter blah-blab-blab
of this title.
We've done that. He's proposed an affidavit as part
of the planning materials that have been submitted. We have
met every requirement that the State has allowed and has in
rule, and I find it very hard, in this time of growth and when
we're in historic water level lows again, that the County's
going to take a position that a guy cannot conserve water and
-- and do the best -- and we ought to be promoting this type
of an atmosphere and concept rather than mandating he put in a
big septic system. Yeah, that's good for the economy, but he
has no intent -- and why is the County telling this man,
again, how to put in a septic system and how to live his life?
If he doesn't want to spend that on water, why does he have
e-i4 06
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to? It's just a promotionary concept that I -- I think, you
know, legislation -- last legislative session, the gray water
definition has been expanded to include many more items in a
household, but it has been very difficult to get anything
passed through the septic program at this time in expanding
the gray water use.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me ask you a question,
~ please.
MR. WIEDENFELD: Sure.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did I hear you say that we
don't have to grant a variance; that we have the authority to
approve a permit for the system you've designed?
MR. WIEDENFELD: Well, I -- taking the very
strictest interpretation, by me, it would still need a
variance, if I provide equal protection. And rainwater, use
of rainwater -- well, and this is a self-contained septic
system; it's not -- it's a little -- it's almost akin to being
a holding tank. But the cost-effectiveness of a holding tank
that has to be pumped out every -- you know, and alarms still
have to be put on it. You know, the cost of that over a
10-year period --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second question. It's your
opinion that this Court has the authority to grant a variance?
MR. WIEDENFELD: Most definitely. It always has
been. Y'all have more authority -- and the state has
8-19 06
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
delegated y'all full authority, and it's -- you know, you can
just take a look at the counties around you, how they -- what
position the county commissioners take.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with Charlie. I know
you find that hard to believe, but I agree with him that we do
have the authority to grant a variance. As long as -- you
used a term in that last tirade.
MR. WIEDENFELD: Equivalent protection.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What?
MR. WIEDENFELD: Equivalent protection.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Equivalent protection.
However, let me read from this e-mail from the T.C.E.Q., or --
yeah, T.C.E.Q. It says, "No reduction in the size of an
O.S.S. F. system will be allowed when using a gray water
system." Based on the current rules, a reduction is not
allowed. That's the state saying that. So, you know, even
though I -- I really like what the guy's trying to do, I think
it's a neat, neat way to do things, but it appears to me the
state's saying, you know, can't do it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I don't know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's a dangerous thing.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know if you have
the patience to work this much further, but if the -- if the
County Attorney will tell this Court that we have authority to
grant this variance, then I'll support it.
d-19-06
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JOHNSTON: I have the patience. I have the
time. And I have also contacted Representative Hilderbran's
office, and hopefully we'll get something working on the state
level. There are other people out there like me. But I will
contact the County Attorney's office, and we can leave this
subject open, if you would like.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm good for that.
MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Anybody else on the
Court have anything to offer in connection with that matter?
Thank you for being here with us today.
MR. WIEDENFELD: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's come back to Item Number
13.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Three.
JUDGE TINLEY: Consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on landscaping plan for the Union Church,
as presented by Kerr County Historical Commission Chairman,
Walter Schellhase.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Morning, General.
MR. SCHELLHASE: How are you doing this morning?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You thought you were early up,
didn't you?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Did you enjoy the morning?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Best free show in town. I have met
8-19-06
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
`°` 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
landscaping program. I presented you a sheet that gives you
the cost. I'll give you a layout to give you an idea of what
we would like to do at the Union Church building. The reason
we're coming to you, we've been to Schreiner University, who
we have a lease with for the program -- or the property, and
they've signed off on this landscaping plan. We've met with
the City, received all the approvals we need, except for the
design of the actual foundation, of which we would like to
present them at a later date when that's been determined. The
plan is, basically, the orange area is currently paved at the
site. The blue area, we want to pave, build a gate, use
crushed granite in this area and build a fence from the
telephone pole where our service comes off Broadway down to
the end of the property.
We have one request from Schreiner; they would like
to the property. The purpose of this, this is a small sample
of the original fence around the courthouse that was built
before the 1926 courthouse burned. We have located that
fence,	and	we	would like	to use that	in the building of this
fence	and	gate	around the	courthouse	-- around the Union
B 1 4 0 6
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Church building.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where did you find the fence?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Get him to answer.
MR. SCHELLHASE: A residence owned by Mr. O'Brien.
And we have purchased that fence with funds that the Friends
have raised, and now are in the process of removing it from
the residence and having it restored. The program will be
done in phases. We will do the fence first, the entrance
gate, which is around a $28,000 cost; the gates at a second
phase of $16,000; the paving around $58,000, for a total cost
of around $114,000. This will obviously be at no cost to the
County. The Friends of the Historical Commission will be --
once approved and signed off, will be raising the funds. The
reason we're bringing this to the Court, it will have an
economical impact on the Court in their budget, not in the
year 2007, but 2008, because of the additional maintenance
that will be required on the site. The landscaping will be in
accordance with city ordinances, so that there will be more
maintenance on the grounds. At the current time, the
Maintenance Department is taking care of the grounds around
the church, in front of the church, the church building.
Schreiner is doing all of the mowing on the area all
surrounding it. So, at this time, we would like to have
concurrence from the Court for us to proceed with this
program, with the understanding that there will be an
d 1 9 0 6
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
economical impact on the maintenance.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd move approval of the
Historical Commission's and Friends of the Historical
Commission's plan to landscape the Union Church building, as
presented by General Schellhase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the project as indicated. Any question or discussion? You
indicate that there will be no budgetary impact upon the
County until 2008, which is not this coming year's budget, but
the subsequent year, and that's only for maintenance. The
actual installation cost will be handled by the Historical
Commission and their private efforts?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 4, if we might.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Before we leave that, on Union
Church Historical Commission, I'd like to present the
Certificate of Achievement that the Historical Commission
8-14-Oh
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
received for last year's work for an overall balanced program,
for presentation to the Court for display in the courthouse.
This will be the fourth year in a row that the Commission has
received recognition by the state for the work being performed
at the local level, primarily because of the oral history work
that's being done for the -- that are being recorded and
placed in the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we going to hang that
here someplace?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes, that belongs to the Court.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Of course, that continuous work at
the Union Church building.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate your efforts. Thank
you very much, General. If we're ready now, we'll call Item
4; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to adopt a
statement of support for the Guard and Reserve. Commissioner
Williams, I believe you asked that this be placed on the
agenda, along with General Schellhase?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, and I'll let
General Schellhase explain. This is something we've done in
the past. We know the value of it. But I put it on the
Court's agenda so we could take official action.
MR. SCHELLHASE: As you recall, last year we came
before the Court and requested a proclamation supporting the
8-19-0 F,
105
1
"' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"~' 2 4
25
efforts of the Guard and Reserve, the employers' support for
the Guard and Reserve. This year, the E.S.G.R. has a new
program, which is a star-rated program, from one to five,
will meet a four-star rating. They won't make the five-star
rating at this time, because, based on what I see in the
employment policies, you are not going above and beyond that
required by law in supporting the Guard and Reserve. As an
example, if you have a reservist on duty, and he is called up
for 24 months of service, you do not provide a differential
pay for that 24 months, and in the event you did, you may rate
a five-star rating. If you were to offer those reserve forces
that are called to active duty -- if you were to offer their
spouse a job within the county somewhere to offset the
differential in salary, so that that reservist does not lose
any funds while on active duty, maybe you would acquire a
five-star. In the event you were to maintain that
duty, it may rate a five star.
So, at this time, my evaluation is that the County
does rate a four-star rating, and I'd like for the Court to
approve that to be -- I have presented and certified and ask
the Court to accept that.
B-14 Oti
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: General, how many reservists or
people do we have that are activated out of the Reserve in the
county? Do you know?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Out of the county?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean out of county
employment.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: County employees.
MR. SCHELLHASE: I have no idea. I know of eight.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Eight that you're aware of?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes. And I believe there's more.
We have several employees in Kerr County that belong to our
unit in Fredericksburg, in Gillespie County, and that unit was
activated. So, those people were considered county employees
and went on active duty.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval of the
resolution.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
e-i9-o6
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
MR. SCHELLHASE: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, I would like to
recognize our congressman, Congressman Lamar Smith, who's been
kind enough to join us today. Congressman?
(Applause.)
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Thank you, Judge. Judge, thank
you for letting me interrupt your business here today, and
thank you all for the good work you are doing as well. You
remind me of the old days when I was once a county
commissioner long ago and far away, which was a great job, and
so I do appreciate what's going on here today. Judge, as you
know, I just wanted to stop by and say hello to you all, and I
don't need to reintroduce myself; I feel like I've got a lot
of friends here and a lot of friends in the county as well.
But because of the redistricting that has just occurred and
the -- and the ruling and map drawing by the three-judge
panel, I now am in the fortunate position of having Kerr
County back in the 21st congressional district, where it was,
I might say, for 18 years, until '03, when a previous
redistricting effort took the county out of the 21st district.
So, it's good to be back. And, frankly, you don't
know how nice it is to be back. Good people here. Good
memories here as well. And coming into town today, I was
reminded of a couple of things that we worked on years ago,
8-19-06
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the -- it was, oh, about five or six years ago when the V.A.,
for example, was on the base closing list, and we worked hard
to get it off the base closing list and to keep it going, and
it's nice to know that it's still there and doing well. But I
also know that's going to be a challenge every year to make
sure that the V.A. continues as the wonderful facility that it
is, and caters to all the veterans in the hill country, and
that's something I'm going to be working on.
Another project that we worked on together and that
is a success story was the new post office. The new post
office is not so new any more; I think probably a lot of
people now think of it as the old post office, but there was a
time when the old old post office was too small. We were able
to get a new post office for Kerrville, and help the other
post office become the -- I think it's the art and cultural
museum that it is right now. So, there's a lot of good
memories of things that we've worked on before, and just glad
to be back today. Judge, let me offer to you and the
Commissioners as well, any time I can be of any help in any
way to you all or to anybody in the county, I certainly want
to pick up where I left off, and continue to be of every help
that we possibly can. It's a privilege and a pleasure to have
represented Kerr County and part of the hill country for so
8-19-06
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
many years, and I hope to be back in an official capacity this
coming January. And, of course, we have a campaign to conduct
between now and then. But, again, I appreciate the
opportunity to be here with you all today, and I'll certainly
let you get back to your more official business that I know
you have going on, but any comments or questions for me?
Again, I just appreciate the opportunity to be here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's good for us to be back
in the 21st district as well. That's been home here for all
of us for a long time.
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Thank you, Commissioner.
Appreciate that, Buster, very much.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We look forward to working
with you, Congressman. There are some issues we'll be talking
to you about.
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Okay. For good or for bad,
there are always federal issues, and you can't get away from
being somehow connected, one way or the other, to the federal
government. I hope to be able to be of help in that regard,
too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Welcome back.
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Jonathan, thanks.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Welcome home.
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Good to be here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Glad to have you with us. Glad to
8-19-06
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have you have us back in your stable, as it were. We hope to
talk with you further about current issues.
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Thank you, Judge, Commissioners,
and we'll be in touch.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait a minute. Is he buying
lunch? (Laughter.)
CONGRESSMAN SMITH: Anytime.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's so funny?
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll see you shortly. Thank you.
Let's move quickly to Item 5; consider, discuss and take
appropriate action to post warning signs at Ingram Dam.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. EMERSON: I guess, first off, I'm glad there's
not a bunch of people behind me to throw things at me. Ingram
Dam's been a recreational site for many years. A number of
you probably slid down the dam. But the problem that has
arisen is under the -- under the recreational statute, we're
pretty well exempt from any litigation, but there is one
question. And the question that comes up under that statute
is that we have to warn of known dangers. And given the
number of people that have come up to me in the last year and
asked who owned the dam and told me about their kids getting
hurt on the dam, I think it would be -- it would behoove us
B 14-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
very strongly to post a warning sign that warns people of the
dangers of recreational activities on that dam.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, what are the
recreational activities?
MR. EMERSON: As far as I know, all people do is
slide and swim off of it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sliding and swimming.
~~ Walking and running? Or hopping?
MR. EMERSON: I would presume, but I'm not out there
enough to comment on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you draft --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Going over it in canoes and
kayaks like we did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can draft language that we
need to have Road and Bridge create the sign? You can come izp
with the language that we need to put on the warning sign?
MR. EMERSON: Sure. It really just needs to be a
generic warning.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why -- why only Ingram? Why
not Flat Rock and C.P. dams?
MR. EMERSON: Any dam that we have -- that we own, I
mean, it would behoove us to put something on it. Ingram Dam
is -- Ingram Dam is the only one I consistently hear about.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are inherent dangers
of anybody recreating, if you will, in the vicinity of a dam,
B 19-OF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
112
no matter where it's located. And I realize that Ingram
Dam -- for a long time, they used to slide down that, but --
and I guess they still do, but there are also other issues
related to people being involved recreationally in the close
proximity of a dam. So, if we're going to do it, might as
well do it in all three of them.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it's appropriate for the
County Attorney to take a look at it and see exactly what kind
of -- of warning signs are necessary to protect us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that we have
Road and Bridge get with the County Attorney for the
appropriate language to post warning signs at all three dams
that have been referenced.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
MS. HARDIN: I have a question. On the -- he had
talked to me about installing a sign. We can only install
signs that meet state regulations for installation to put a
sign on the Ingram Dam. Where are we going to put it? I
mean --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Near the dam. You can put it on
the dam. I think you'd --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In proximity.
MR. EMERSON: This issue that Truby raised, I think,
is because of the state highway right-of-way running through
there, they have to conform to TexDOT standards.
d-19-06
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We also have a
right-of-way, Kerr County does. Anyhow, you all can work that
out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know that TexDOT has
a right-of-way there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not that road right-of-way,
but we've got a road right-of-way that runs across theirs.
MS. HARDIN: Do we have a place in the soil that we
can install a sign? Or are we going to jackhammer a hole in
the concrete? How are we going install this sign? On the
dam?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure. That's an issue we
can't resolve as we sit here now.
MR. ODOM: I'll take a look at that and try to come
up with something. But the question would be, we know that on
high rises, it's going to wipe out, so there is going to be a
continual -- okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comment on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, I've got a comment.
I wish we didn't have to do these kind of things, but I'm sure
we have to protect ourselves. Most of you probably know that
that's really a popular recreation place. If you go out there
this afternoon, that big parking lot at the Ingram complex
will probably be full of cars, and they're paying three bucks
a-i9-ob
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 L
23
24
25
a pop to park there, by the way, and they're renting tubes and
they're renting mats so they can slide down the dam. Just a
whole lot of mostly local people that use that for recreation,
and it's good. It's a good place for recreation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't want to do anything
to inhibit such -- the use of such a good spot by -- by the
citizens.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 8; consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
abandon, vacate, and discontinue Privilege Creek Subdivision
as recorded in Volume 7, Page 136 and 137. We earlier
conducted a public hearing on this item and had no speakers.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. I would ask the Court to take
action to abandon, vacate, and discontinue Privilege Creek
Subdivision as recorded in Volume 7, Pages 136 through 137, in
Precinct 3. It's also -- this was something that was
stipulated for Falls Ranch, that this one be vacated, and
that's what we set up over a month ago, and that's what I ask
the Court to do, so they can continue with the project.
8-19-06
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What are you going to do?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have to abstain.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item to abandon, vacate, and discontinue
Privilege Creek Subdivision, as recorded in Volume 7, Pages
136 and 137, and located in Precinct 3. Any question or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Williams, and Nicholson
voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let the record reflect that
Commissioner Letz abstained from voting. That motion does
carry. Let's move quickly to Item 9; consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action to open new portion of Upper Turtle
Creek Road, located in Precincts 1 and 4.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Previously, in another meeting
of the Court, I informed you that this was coming. And as you
know, the landowner at the end of Upper Turtle Creek Road
asked to move the road away from his house several years ago,
and he was told that he would have to construct a new road and
dedicate the right-of-way to Kerr County. Then Kerr County
e-i9 06
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would deed the old road back to him. He has paid all the
surveying costs and the construction of the new road, which is
completed. We would like to open the road, but have been
waiting for the surveyor to complete an as-built survey so the
title work can be completed. Tom Pollard is the landowner's
attorney, and we thought it might expedite the changeover if
we paid him to complete all the documents for the transfer on
our part too. That was saving a little bit of time for Rex,
but that's -- I know Tom, and he's done it in the past for us.
At different times, the Court has authorized him to do
different things. At this time, we ask you to allow us to
open this new section of road before the paperwork is
complete. The footings and all are there. I would like to
divert that traffic over; it's a perfectly good road. I know
the gentleman has called me, and I told him I couldn't do
anything, so -- without that paperwork in hand. I -- the
surveyor's just backed up and can't get it done right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is the County in any way
responsible for payment to have these documents drawn up for
the transfer?
MR. ODOM: I would assume on our part. I am
assuming that. I wasn't in that discussion before. You and
Frank were there, and I don't know what was said at that
point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we did not talk about
s-i4-oF
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
paperwork and transfers of titles and all that. I'm just not
clear why we're paying the landowner's attorney.
MR. ODOM: No. For our portion of the paperwork, we
I have --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. I know that. What
I'm not clear about is what our portion of the paperwork is.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that would be the --
MR. ODOM: The quitclaim of the --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the conveyance back of the -- of
the road that's being vacated.
MR. ODOM: Vacated.
JUDGE TINLEY: In lieu of the new road being put in.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the only thing I can see that
we might be responsible for.
MR. ODOM: Be responsible for.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so we want to pay a --
pay Mr. Pollard instead of waiting on the County Attorney? Is
that what the issue is?
MR. ODOM: Well, that -- I'm just throwing it out.
I'm just saying I don't -- I haven't had a chance --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that what he said?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I heard.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ODOM: To answer your question, it's what it
8 19-06
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
says here. If you want to expedite it, if he's got to do the
work for him, he would also be able to do the work for us.
So, I -- that's up to the Court. I mean, I'm just throwing it
out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If he wants to do it at no cost,
that's fine, but if not, we have to wait for Rex.
MR. ODOM: Okay, then. But I would like to open
this road. That's the only issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the only thing before us on
the agenda, is to open the road.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, and I'm for that as
well. And it's a beautiful road, and it's -- a neat thing has
happened out there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't -- if I can get
Mr. Pollard's name out of this -- out of this deal, and
make -- and still make a motion to open the road, then --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can we open a road on property
we don't own?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has the right-of-way --
right-of-way been conveyed to us?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. That's what they're waiting
on.
8-19-06
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: That's what I'm waiting on. I'm
waiting --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How would you build a road
if the right-of-way hasn't been conveyed to you already?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He built it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Built it on private property.
MR. ODOM: He built it on private property. It was
an agreement to do that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ODOM: What we're waiting on --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's two issues. It's
not just abandoning --
MR. ODOM: I'm waiting on a surveyor to get the
documentation for the survey. Mr. Pollard can convey that to
the County. And then we have an old road, and we need to
convey that easement to Mr. Hardin.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Two issues.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think Mr. Pollard's --
first of all, Mr. Pollard's -- I think Mr. Pollard could
convey one instrument that does both things. But that's
just -- that's between -- no, he says -- the Judge is saying
no, that can't be done. Either way, I don't think Mr. Pollard
needs to be involved.
MR. ODOM: I'm sorry I even brought legal into this.
I really just want to open the road. I take it back.
8-19-06
120
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you a question.
If I were to make a motion to open the road for public use,
and that court order passed here, is there any liability in it
for us that we don't own it? I mean, you have --
MR. ODOM: I would assume that we could take the
same responsibility that we have on that old road. But the
newer one is so much safer than the old one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, you have a public road
coming up to it, and then you have a private road and then
some public road. And we're going to open --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let's get the County Attorney in
I on this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
MR. EMERSON: The only comment I would have, and
this is theoretical, would be that you're going to have a
quarter-mile section of road that's private road, that we have
no enforcement authority over, that's going to a public road.
JUDGE TINLEY: You think maybe it best to wait until
we've got everything in place and do it all at once?
MR. EMERSON: I believe that would be the proper
thing to do, Judge.
MR. ODOM: Solves the problem.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right. Then that brings
up one more question. Rex, do you think that we need to pay
Tommy Pollard to do -- to do this paperwork?
a-i9-o r,
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EMERSON: I'm not going to comment on that,
except to say that I have -- I don't think I've been asked to
do it. But it was also my understanding, and I may be wrong
here, that when all this originally started, that it was at
the request of the property owner, so that he could move the
road out from between his buildings to a more neutral site,
and that he was going to cover all the costs. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, see, that was my
original question. I don't see why the County -- I still
don't see why the County's paying anything, what --
JUDGE TINLEY: We're not yet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- what cost there is to the
County for our part of the paperwork. I don't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I kind of agree with
Commissioner Baldwin that it's -- they ought to pay both -- do
it all.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, at this point, we're going to do
nothing; is that right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think I'm willing to
make a motion until we get it straight.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we move on to Item 10 so we
can go to lunch?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to consider alternate plat process for
3-19-Oti
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
122
revising Lots 16, 17, 18 of Riverside Park, and set a public
hearing for the same.
MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Mr. Manning has his house and
barn on Lots 17 and 18. They are very close to the property
line; therefore, he wants to adjust the lot line. The exact
amount of acreage for Lot 16 cannot be determined until the
survey has been completed, but it should be approximately .36,
which would ]eave 3 acres for that lot. Mr. Manning wishes to
sell Lot 16. I believe that the comment was, to pay for
college. So, at this time, we ask the Court to set a public
hearing for September 25th, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. And you have
the drawing and -- of this property.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I make a motion --
MR. ODOM: This is in Precinct 4.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- that we approve the
alternate plat process for revising Lots 16, 17, 18, Riverside
Park, and set a public hearing for September 25 at 10;30 a.m.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item and setting a public hearing for 9-25-06 at
I
10:30 a.m. Any question or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is he going to retain three --
there will be three lots when he's done?
MR. ODOM: He's -- well, he owns 16, 17, and 18.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; Right, and there's going to be a
8-19-V6
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16, 17, and 18 when he's done?
MR, ODOM: That's right. 16 wi71 be closer to
3 acres.
I JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. We'll be in
recess until 1:30.
(Recess taken from 12:20 p.m, to 1:30 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we come back to order, if
we might. We were in recess for lunch, and we'll take up the
next item on the agenda. Item 12, consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action on approving the Kerr County Juvenile
Detention Facility Policies and Procedures manual for
2006-'07. Mr. Stanton.
MR. STANTON: Hello, gentlemen. Texas Juvenile
Probation Commission is going to be at our facility
September 11th to audit us from the ground up. It's an annual
audit. This will be the first time that we've been in our new
building since they've come to audit, so we get the pleasure
of them starting at the bottom and working all the way to the
top. And part of that is to make sure that our policy and
8-19-Oh
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
procedure manual is correct and intact and the way it's
supposed to be. For the last couple weeks, I've been
rewriting the policy and procedure manual, taking out all the
postadjudication part of the -- the programs and stuff out of
the policy and procedure manual, and I've given it to
Mr. Emerson to review. I think he's about 85 percent finished
with reviewing it. The only thing that -- he's found some
grammatical errors and grammatical things he's correcting on
it, but what I'm asking is that if you guys could approve the
policy and procedure manual pending Mr, Emerson's final
approval, if there's not any -- not anything that needs to be
really changed in it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll tell you, I was up
almost all night long reading that thing. And, you know, just
-- wasn't hardly any room in my packet for it.
MR. STANTON: I know. I'm sorry, Mr. Baldwin. It
just got finished. You don't want one?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You can have mine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Essentially, it changes
everything, makes it just preadjudicated only, correct?
MR. STANTON: It -- it's basically the same policy
and procedure manual that we had before that was approved by
the Board of Trustees, except this -- I've taken all of the
post policies and procedures out of the manual.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see the County Attorney nodding his
8-19-OG
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
head in the affirmative.
MR. EMERSON: Yes, sir.
MR. STANTON: If anybody wants a paper copy of it, I
have a paper copy of it too.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's the one that you were studying
for hours on end, Mr. Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I gave it back to him
this morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a reason to approve it
today, or could it wait until our next meeting?
MR. STANTON: As long as it's before September 11th,
yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: September 11th, that's the
date they're coming?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if we get the hard copy
and just pass it around to each other's boxes, that's probably
the better way. 'Cause in reality, even though this is
high-tech and probably the proper way to do it, I can't read
this much on a computer screen.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When do we meet in
September?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, no, we have a meeting --
we meet in two weeks, the 28th.
a-i9-oE
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't remember this being a
big document. I thought it was fairly small.
MR. STANTON: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, no, I'm sorry. You're --
I'm wrong. I'm wrong.
MR. STANTON: I mean, it was about 200 -- it was
about 260 pages before. It's been reduced down to 124.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You were just reading the
summary sheet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No wonder I couldn't get
through it last night.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When you print it out,
don't print one for me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think just circulate one
through the office, and we can do it at our next meeting.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Think that will work?
MR. STANTON: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And everybody can read it.
JUDGE TINLEY: As a practical matter, as I'm sure
Mr. Stanton will verify, T.J.P.C. in large measure prescribes
what's in your policies and procedures manual, and it better
be there.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. It's all -- all based on
the resource manual that T.J.P.C. puts out. And each of the
policies that are in -- on this and in here are labeled in
a-i4-a c.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
accordance to the T.J.P.C. resource manual. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: So it even uses the state numbering
and organization system. Maybe that's what had you so
confused.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I guess so. I don't know
what it was. Great document.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We ready to move on? Let's go
to Item 13. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on
approving the per diem rate for the Kerr County Juvenile
Detention Center and approve Judge Tinley to sign off on
contracts with counties contracting with Kerr County for
secure preadjudication detention services.
MR. STANTON: Basically, this is the same piece of
paper that I presented you guys at the budget hearings that we
over -- we over-did. So far this year, our average population
is increased from seven and a half to ten kids per day. My
recommendation to the Court is that we raise the per diem rate
up to $90 a day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 90?
MR, STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for the per
diem rate to be established at $90 per day for children at the
Kerr County Juvenile Detention Center for secure
? - 1 9 - 0 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
128
preadjudication detention services.
MR. STANTON: We'll be --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we -- excuse me.
MR. STANTON: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can we put in that same
motion about you signing off?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And authorize County Judge to
sign.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And authorize County Judge
to sign same.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That's part of it? All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or let me rephrase that. And
authorize County Judge to sign contracts regarding same.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any question or discussion on
the motion as amended and corrected? All in favor of the
~ motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Mr. Stanton, let
me ask you, if I might, while you're here, the -- the census
-- the average daily census of ten --
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- is that -- what period of time
8-19-Ov
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
does that cover?
MR. STANTON: From January lst.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. STANTON: January 1st until today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. At what point was it when --
when postadjudication were eliminated? Wasn`t that towards
the end of March?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir, but I'm just talking about
pres. The average daily attendance is just from January, if
we went back till January 1st, and the average -- our average
preadjudication.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's just the pre population?
MR. STANTON: Just pre.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, good. Okay, thank you.
MR. STANTON: And as of taday, we have 12 kids,
seven out-of-county and five Kerr County kids.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: All right.
i COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: What counties, Mr. Stanton, are we --
are we routinely obtaining children from? Are most of them
coming out of the 198th?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. The majority of them, yes,
sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, thank you. Let's go to Item
15, if we might. Consider, discuss, and appoint Lieutenant
8-19-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
130
Rob McCutcheon to the Criminal Justice Advisory Committee of
the Alamo Area Council of Governments to represent Kerr
County. Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. I'm just assuming
that everyone understands what this is,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do,
JUDGE TINLEY: I do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Does Rob want it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: He's consented to serve in that
capacity. He's been the alternate.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: He was the alternate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I move we appoint
Lieutenant Rob McCutcheon to the Criminal Justice Advisory
Committee, Alamo Area Council of Governments, to represent
Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded as
indicated. Any question or discussion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
DODGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry.
I
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, at some point, we got
a-i9-oE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
131
to come back and appoint an alternate for him. That wasn't --
7 wasn't asked to do that, so --
II SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I do have a recommendation on
an alternate. But --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hold it to yourself.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have some thoughts on that myself.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all get together and fight
it out.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: Item 16, consider and discuss
performing State-required O.S.S.F, functions for the City of
Ingram and take appropriate action on resolution from the City
of Ingram authorizing Kerr County to perform such functions.
As the backup material indicates, I placed this on the agenda
after a meeting with the mayor and City Attorney for the City
of Ingram. They have a few instances each year in which they
have the O.S.S.F. applications submitted to them. Because of
the difficulty in having someone that's qualified, a separate
designated representative and so forth, they have asked if we
would consider being the designated representative for the
City of Ingram and handling their O.S.S. F, functions, the
consideration being that any fees that are generated out of
those applications and cases would remain here at Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about this memo from
Miguel talking about they need to relinquish their authorized
8-19-OF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
132
agent status?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my only response to that would
be, if -- if the City of Ingram appoints Kerr County -- or
Kerr County as their designated representative, as that term
is commonly known, that would supersede, I would think, their
current appointment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, it just sounds like
that this step -- by reading this paragraph from Miguel, it
looks like that -- that this step needs to be taken first. I
mean, I don't know. I agree with you. It seems like that's
the way it should work, but it --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me see.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Here, you can have your very
own. Ingram must first relinquish their O.S.S.F. order with
T.C.E.Q. and vacate their authorized agent status. So, I'm
assuming that he's...
JUDGE TINLEY: Mayor Hiram Walker.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we supposed to stand up
and bow?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MAYOR JACKSON: Not hardly. According to Danny
Edwards, he spoke to T.C.E.Q., and the resolution we passed
should serve as that. In other words, it --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MAYOR JACKSON: -- it accomplishes both functions at
8-19-OE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
133
the same time. So, as far as the person at T.C.E.Q. he spoke
to, this should be sufficient. If not, it's not a problem.
II We can -- you know, we can draft whatever kind of document
T.C.E.Q. really wants. Council's fully on board, so it's just
a matter of formalities.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One interesting point that
Miguel raises. Because if you didn't do that, there are --
then there would be two authorized agents, which is the level
above designated representative, and you'd have two. Kerr
County doing the work for you as authorized agent and
designated representative, but you folks would still be the
authorized agent. I`m curious about that.
i MAYOR JACKSON: All I can tell you is that the City
I Attorney spoke to the State, and that's what they said. So,
~ if there is something different, like I say, it's not a
problem on our end. We can draft it any way they want it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How many -- Howard, how many
applications come in a year?
MAYOR JACKSON: I've heard two or three. It's not a
-- not a large number. There's not been a lot of -- of
building activity within the city. Most of it's been outside.
And then, of course, it's going to decrease as we get our
wastewater system online, so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Only reason I bring it
up is that, I mean, the county subsidizes that program. And
8 1 9- U 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
134
if it was -- two or three is not hardly worth fiddling about,
but if it's -- if it was, like, 100, well, yeah, it would be.
MAYOR JACKSON: I wish it was.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Are there any -- inside the
city limits, are there any large tracts left that could be
developed?
MAYOR JACKSON: There's a few, but none that I have
heard anything about anybody showing any interest in. Like I
say, once this wastewater system actually becomes -- we get
some pipe in the ground, I suspect that that's going to be --
but we're going to push for connection to that system versus
septic tanks. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's going to be a --
that's going to change Ingram for the better.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's your anticipated
timetable on the sewer system?
MAYOR JACKSON: If we can get the surveyor, again,
to give us the data we need, I'm anticipating we'll probably
bid it sometime later in the year, so construction would
actually start probably in the spring or late winter. That's
what I'm hoping, anyway.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good. Sooner the better.
MAYOR JACKSON: If I had a backhoe, I could start it
sooner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know anybody who
e in-oE
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
knows more about that stuff than you do, anyway.
MAYOR JACKSON: Well, this will be the first time in
my entire career that I've gotten to start on the very bottom
of it. Hopefully we can get it right.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're starting on this end, and
you're used to starting on the other end of it.
MAYOR JACKSON: I'm usual]y trying to fix decades of
somebody else's mistakes, so this time there's not going to be
anybody to blame but us. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want the County Attorney to
take a look at this thing and make sure the legalities are
correct? Or what's the Court's pleasure?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Miguel's here. He's here
~ now, so --
MR. ARREOLA: Got in a little late, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The question has to do with
authorized agent status.
MR. ARREOLA: Yes. We checked with T.C.E.Q., and --
or I was talking to Mr. Jackson. We need to get the
authorized agent status to be revoked, basically, to move it
into the County. And I don't know where the process is there,
if they already started it or not. I e-mailed T.C.E.Q. I
haven't gotten a response yet to see where they are on that.
The other thing we can do probably is interlocal agreement in
the meantime, but I don't think we can just take over without
N 1 4 O b
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
them first -- renounce to that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I guess we better -- I
guess we better wait. I want to hear him tell me I can vote
before I better vote.
MAYOR JACKSON: Whatever paperwork or however --
what form we need to put it in won't be a problem for us.
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess Mr. Emerson and Mr. Edwards
can collaborate.
MAYOR JACKSON: That would probably be the best
i idea, because this sounds like a legal issue to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Mayor Jackson, we appreciate
you being here with us today. Sorry about the delay. I know
you've been here all morning.
MAYOR JACKSON: Not a problem, but I do have other
commitments, so I'll see you guys later.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Item 17; consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action on request from Blue
Knights to use Flat Rock Lake Park the weekend of October 21,
2005. That'll be 20, 21, and 22 October. I put this on the
agenda at the request of a representative of Blue Knights;
Lieutenant Rob McCutcheon, as a matter of fact. He -- he
provided us with some backup material in the back. I did
8-14-06
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mention to him that they would not be able to exclude others
from the park that would normally use it for fishing or
whatever else may occur down there. Be much like the
situation where the Easter Festival was held and so forth. He
said that was perfectly acceptable.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the agenda item. Any comments or questions? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Let's move
to Item 18. Consider, and decide on a process for selecting
Human Resource Director and Administrative Assistant.
Commissioner 4, it looks like. Or 2, whichever.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I didn't prepare any
material on this, but I think what we're looking for here is
some guidance from the Court on what kind of process you want.
We have a number of applications that we're looking at, three
for the assistant job and probably a dozen or 15 for the
director job. Certainly, we're going to be screening those
down to -- to a few that we feel like are qualified and
recruitable. Where do you want -- where does the Court want
K 19 OG
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to be in the decision-making process? Do you want us to bring
you one candidate for each job and say, "Here's our
recommendation"? Or do you want to look at more than one
face-to-face?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think it -- the number
needs to either be three or five. Y'all pare it down to three
or five.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And bring those three or five
in here.
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: That's kind	of where I am, I I
think.	Three? Three.		i
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Three is fine.
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: Five at the	most.
	DODGE TINLEY:	I'd say a minimum of	three.
	COMMISSIONER	NICHOLSON: Do we need	any more
direction than that, Commissioner?	
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: Not really.	I think you and
I can --	you and I can	work to get it down to	the three or the
five. What's your preference, three or five?	
	COMMISSIONER	BALDWIN: Three.	
	COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS: I think we	can work to get
it down	to three, you and I. And then we inv	ite those folks
in for	-- we invite those three for the first	interview, but
for the	main interview	after we select them,	they're going to
8-14-06
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
come before the Court. We'll finalize that, get it down to
three.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me make sure we're
saying the same thing. Commissioner Baldwin, do you want to
interview the three of them, or do you want to interview one
of the three that we --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to interview three.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I -- and the assistant's
position, you guys are going to handle that too? Or are you
going to get the new -- the new number-one man to be in on
that hiring process?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think the time
constraints are that we`re going to have to make a decision on
this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It would be desirable to
have the new --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- him or her, whoever we
select, to do that, but I think we need that assistant in
here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if the -- I think we ought
-- there should be enough time -- well, when do you plan to
8 19 06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
140
bring the three?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When are you going to bring the
three candidates in?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Late this month.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, if that's the case, I
mean, I would think that then this new person may not be on
board yet, but they could at least participate in the
interview process for the number-two person.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'cause I -- I mean, I would -- I
wou]d certainly delay as long as we possibly can on that
second slot, because you sure don't want to have someone --
i well, you -- in reality, I think we need to kind of talk to
i the lead person, find out what this second person needs to do.
JUDGE TINLEY: How many applicants do we have for
this -- the admin. assistant's position at this point?
I
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Three.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you think we need to give some
more emphasis to advertising that position? I know we have
advertised it in-house, but --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Not -- my preference is to
give first consideration to current employees.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's not just because
8 1 4 U 6
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that's good for -- good policy and good for morale, but also,
you know, there's less risk taking somebody you know than
taking someone who writes a nice resume. If we select someone
from inside, the risk of them failing is not very high. If we
take someone from outside, even though you think you know a
lot about them, the risk's quite a bit greater. So, I would
like to either select or eliminate one of the insiders before
-- before we go outside.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on that one?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good guidance.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's move on to Item 19, if we
might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to
approve appendix for the Kerr County Subdivision Rules.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is on the agenda, I think,
at the request of Truby, based on the request of Rex. And I
think the issue is, we never approved the appendix. Though we
approved the Subdivision Rules, and I kind of thought it went
together, but there were some changes being made to the
appendix, so it's probably not a bad idea to approve the
appendix as well. I don't think there's anything different,
really.
JUDGE TINLEY: No substantive changes?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. And just for information
8-14-OE
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
purposes, I don't know if I told the Court this or not. I
believe I did mention it to Rex, because there have been a
number of changes since we went through our first public
hearing after this had been out to the public and printed.
We're going to probably redo a new public hearing later this
fall, and then a whole new process of the exact same rules
again, and hopefully catch any typos and things during that.
And it's just a matter of -- we went through an awful long
process between the public hearing to the adoption phase, and
there were changes, even though I don't think any of them are
particularly substantive.
JUDGE TINLEY: Technically, we're operating under
the new rules, and even were before their real formal
adoption, were we not?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct, we were.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we need to go ahead and get
these approved, then, so that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. The appendix, we need to
definitely go ahead and -- I mean, there's an argument that
they already were approved previously, but let's go ahead, and
I make a motion we approve the appendix as submitted today.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the appendix to the Kerr County Subdivision Rules as -- as
submitted. Any question or comment? All in favor of the
8 19-OG
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to suggest that
Number 20 move to exec. We're going to be talking about
reassignment of some people.
JUDGE TINLEY: Specific people?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I assume you have no problem
with that, Mr. County Attorney?
MR. EMERSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can move on and finish
and come back to it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to Item 21, if we
might. Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action on the
Kerr County management discussion and analysis for the '04-'OS
audit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is -- somehow, last year I
drew the short stick and got to write the thing, and Tommy
gave it to me again this year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What do you mean, somehow you
R-19-06
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
got stuck with it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, Tommy give it to me last
year. Tommy gave it to me this year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You wonder how these things
land in your -- with you?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You volunteered, come on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Of course he did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, I don't think I'm really
ready to adopt it. We need to do it tomorrow -- in the -- not
tomorrow, at our next meeting. The -- what I put for here is
the -- and I think probably the most important part is the
budget financial highlights, the bullets all here. The tables
have not been incorporated into it yet, due in part to some
e-mail glitches, some today, and there's one section I still
need to work on the verbiage a little bit. I will say it's --
it is a very confusing budget year, and the reason is, the
Juvenile Detention Facility was listed as a proprietary fund;
therefore, it was excluded last time from all of the
governmental activities. This year, because it's now owned by
Kerr County, not by the facilities corporation -- or not this
year, but 2004-2005. Therefore, it was combined, so the
changes in the categories are -- what you kind of track from
year to year, are very large in some instances. And I've
tried to -- you know, so, you'll -- if someone reads this --
if anyone reads it, it's probably mentioned about 50 times
fl-19-06
145
1
- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
°" 2 4
25
that the Juvenile Detention Facility is the reason why these
I've also asked Tommy to go through and really check
the numbers, because when I was going through the audit, I
want to make sure that I picked up the -- I understood what
the -- you know, the audit, 'cause it was confusing. And
there's -- some of the numbers I was a little bit unclear
about, such as what was the actual loss at the detention
facility during this period. I came up with, I think,
1.12 million, but that could vary up or down depending on
exactly how you calculate that loss. The -- this was -- it
was a good reminder of how bad things were back then. We've
come a long way and our financial position has improved quite
a bit to where we are -- at the end of this year, I think the
next -- the audit for the year we're currently in is certainly
going to have some problems, but I think, you know, it's kind
of a two-year hit from the juvenile facility.
The good news is that if you look at this -- and I'm
just going to give you some comments. The long-term debt
situation is greatly improved, a lot more so than I really
thought it would be. It was, at the beginning of the year --
or beginning of 2004, about a little over $10 million; it's
down to $4 million something now, almost $5 million. But we
almost cut it in half, due to the refinancing and paying some
things off -- and I shouldn't say refinancing; after the
tl-19-06
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
agreement to do what we did with the bondholders. So, our
long-term debt situation looks really good, in my opinion.
Our reserves are pretty good, coming back up. So, this is
kind of, I think, the worst year that we're going to hit from
the audit standpoint, but it is rather confusing. And on the
highlights, I really didn't -- when I was thinking back to
what happened in 2004-2005, it was dominated by the juvenile
facility. I don't really recall that we spent a whole lot of
time or money on other specific projects, other than just
general operations. So, if anything was left off of those
bullets, remind me and I'll be glad to add some. But, anyway,
this will be back on our agenda next time.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Where do I see the reserves
~ on here?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, there's -- there's a bunch
that you don't have here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a bunch of the charts.
But the -- it's the -- the bullet down the second from the
bottom, the fund balance. They're -- the reserves are
25 percent. Doesn't give you a dollar figure here -- well, it
does; it's $3 million. But it's a -- once the tables are
included, some of those things are a little bit more apparent.
This is just the first draft. Tommy's going through it, like
I said, and making some more adjustments.
8-14-U6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
147
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Nice work, Number 3.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I haven't got it done yet; I
wouldn't say that yet. You might wait till we get the final
version out.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's such a big job, I
think we ought to rotate it around, and Number 4 do it next
year. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I think we ought to leave
it with Number 3.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Could end up coming to Number 1,
right?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I don't like the
rotation thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm with you. I veto that
idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, there was another
number --
JUDGE TINLEY: This may be something in which I have
leverage, I suddenly discovered.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, Tommy and I will go
through it again and try to make sure all the numbers are
correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good job.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's basically the same formula
B-19-OE
148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we used last year. But we're getting close, Tommy, aren't we?
We got something -- he finally got something after he's been
pestering me for two months. I apologize for procrastinating
so long.
MR. TOMLINSON: As soon as I get your e-mail.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Once it gets unlocked. All
right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we go ahead and do our
reports, then, if we don't have anything further on that
particular item. Do we have a report from Animal Control?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No, sir, we won't have one
today. We're short-handed over there today, and Janie is
covering up, taking care of animals, so I told her we would
pass on it today, but things are going well.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. What's the staffing level over
there now, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're up to full five
complement. We just happened to have one on vacation today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Extension Office. I see
they're here.
MS. OSTEEN: Good afternoon.
JUDGE TINLEY: Did Roy drop this on you now?
MS. OSTEEN: Yes, he did, but it's okay. Good
8 14 06
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
afternoon, Judge and Commissioners. This is my pleasure to be
here today, and I wanted to update you on a few of the 4-H
activities and the Extension Office activities. In July,
also nine adult volunteers. July 10th through the 14th, 4-H
held a mini-camp, and that mini-camp was held for Salvation
Army kids, and there were 46 participants; 19 then junior and
senior council teen leaders were there. July 20th, Roy and I
attended the District Record Book judging in Helotes, and at
that time we had 13 of our 4-H members submit record books to
the district. Two of those record books were advanced to
state, and from that, we had one of our members who got second
place in state with her leadership record book, and another
got ninth place at state with his swine record book.
July 23rd through the 26th, 4-H kids went to State
Congress Conference, and there were five teen leaders there.
August 13th, which was yesterday, we all attended the officer
and council training which was held at the Mo Ranch, and at
that we had 38 4-H'ers participate; 16 leaders, and then we
also had 11 adult volunteers. Coming up in September, Roy i.s
having -- or hosting an estate planning seminar, and this is
going to be September 11th from 2 to 6 p.m. at the Kerr County
Youth Exhibition Center. During this estate planning seminar,
B-14-06
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
he will have someone speak about the land values and changes
in land values that are relative to the hill country. And he
will also have someone there who will be talking about estate
planning, and with that, discussing changes in estate laws and
estate planning relative to wills and trusts. On August 27th,
we'll be having our 4-H awards banquet. And that will be at
6 p.m., and we'd like to invite all of you to attend, and each
one of you will be receiving an invitation to this banquet.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What was the date?
MS. OSTEEN: August 27th, and that's at 6 p.m.
MR. WALSTON: Is that the 26th? Should be a
~ Saturday.
MS. OSTEEN: It's a Saturday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 26th.
MS. OSTEEN: Okay, thank you. Don't want to give
you the wrong date. But you will each be receiving an
invitation, so we'd like you to attend that awards banquet.
And our registration for 4-H begins in September. And at that
time, kids will be registering for their 4-H projects. I will
be training adult leaders in the food and nutrition project,
and my training will begin on August 29th. September 29th,
I'm having a lock-in, which is something new in Kerr County,
and this will be a lock-in for youth participating in the food
and nutrition program and for the adult volunteers. So, we'll
be learning food and nutrition exercises and games and
8-19-06
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
_"' 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Personally, I will be implementing in Kerr County
the Better Living for Texans nutrition program, and I'll be
doing that at some of the senior centers, at WIC, and through
our Head Start program, so I'll be able to target youth and
seniors and then kind of in-between audiences. And this is a
nutrition program. In October, I will be attending training
for the Do Well, Be Well With Diabetes program, and I'll have
a date to implement that coming at the beginning of 2007;
sometime in January, once I go through the training for that
program. Beginning Monday, August 21st, I will be submitting
weekly articles to the Kerrville Daily Times newspaper, and my
weekly articles will be dealing with family and youth issues
that kind of need to be addressed here in Kerr County. So,
those are some of the things that we've experienced here in
Extension and that we have coming up in our Extension Office.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to know about your
Yes.
F-19-06
152
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You said -- I heard you say
WIC and several other places in town. Now, what if my name
was Joe Blow.
MS. OSTEEN: Yes?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And Joe Blow wants to go and
take your course or attend your seminar. May I do that?
MS. OSTEEN: You certainly may. And what -- what I
can do is offer nutrition programs to any organization, any
special interest group, anything that, you know, would like me
to offer nutritional programs. I can do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I walk in -- I'm a sacker
over at H.E.B., but I'm interested in -- interested in this
thing. Can I walk into the WIC office that day you're doing
that, and --
MS. OSTEEN: I don't think you can walk in -- just
walk into the WIC office. I think --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You watch. I'll show you how
I to do it.
MS. OSTEEN: Well, then, you can. But I think it's
for that special interest group.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay.
MS. OSTEEN: What I will target for that group is
dependent upon that group's needs.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see.
MS. OSTEEN: So, if -- let's say people at H.E.B.,
P-19-G6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
153
if they want, you know, a nutrition program, then I'm going to
come up with a nutrition program that focuses specifically on
what their population wants.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay.
MS. OSTEEN: So, it's open -- you know, the
program's open to any audience. But my -- my job is to
specialize that for each and every audience.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. You answered my
question. Very good. Thank you.
MS. OSTEEN: All right. Good.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MS. OSTEEN: Any other questions?
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do have one more. Roy is
going to do an estate planning seminar dealing with land
values. That could get really interesting.
MR. WALSTON: Yeah. We've got Dr. Charles Gilliland
with the Real Estate Center at Texas A & M, and he does
evaluations and research based on -- and keeps up with the
land values and how it's changing. And that's -- I felt like
that would be something that, in tying in with the estate
plans, would be something that --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. WALSTON: -- anybody with any property may not
j realize that their changing land values are changing the
8-19-06
154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
effects on our estate plans.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the date of that, Roy?
MR. WALSTON: September the 11th, from 2:00 to 6:00.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hard to forget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, it's hard to forget
that one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have a copy of that report
that was released out of A & M, probably about six weeks ago
now, relative to Texas land values?
MR. WALSTON: The only thing I've seen was the --
that they had, like, 2001. I didn't see anything recent. I
haven't seen anything.
JUDGE TINLEY: My understanding, about a month or a
little bit more ago, there was a report released from A & M
about land values in Texas, broken down into metropolitan,
urban, and rural, in which they -- in which they ranked land
values, as it were.
MR. WALSTON: I'm sure he does. I mean, I -- like I
say, I haven't seen that. I've tried to look. And I -- I
haven't asked him, and particularly what his most recent
research is.
JUDGE TINLEY: Would you be kind enough to make
inquiry, see if you could get that?
MR. WALSTON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand that there was one just
8-19-06
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
about a month or so ago.
MR. WALSTON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'd be interested in seeing it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've seen some prices
recently in west Kerr County on raw land, open land building 'I
sites, whatever, and it's stunning the increase in asking
prices or selling prices. I'm talking about in 10 years, it's
gone up six to eight times. Just --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it's amazing. Large
tracts are -- I mean, used to were insulated for a long time.
They now are going for almost as much as what I used to
consider a small tract would go for.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The report the Judge is talking
about shows that Kerr County has the highest median prices and
land values anywhere in the state.
JUDGE TINLEY: For rural counties.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, for rural counties.
Well, coming in second is Travis County, and we're above all
other counties.
MR. WALSTON: And they're starting to be an added
attraction to those larger acreage lands, so that's what's
pulling those --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Y'all remember that
subdivision we approved there on 1340 across from Wagon Wheel
on the Guadalupe, 5 and larger acre tracts, the 5-acre tracts
8-14-Oo
156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are being offered at 72,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Wow.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And on sale.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what's scary.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Roy, what's happening with
the Master Gardener program out there?
MR. WALSTON: Our Master Gardeners -- if y'all
happened to be out that way this weekend, we are in the
I process -- they put in the irrigation system into our
demonstration area. We're in the process of getting that
finalized here in the next couple of days, and trying to get
some -- some grass established just as soon as we can. We've
got some squares that we're looking at getting put in, and
then we're going to have, I think, 11 different varieties of
about -- there's actually five varieties with about two or
three different varieties within each type. So, we'll have a
lot of -- and these are -- these are varieties that people can
use here in Kerr County where they can look and -- and see
some landscape plants there on-site, as well as some turf,
different turf grasses that are recommended. So...
JUDGE TINLEY: A lot of dirt was moving there this
weekend, wasn't it?
MR. WALSTON: Yeah. Yeah. They were -- they were
going full strength, and I think they had a lot of help,
e i9 06
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
anyway.
JUDGE TINLEY: You were using community service
workers out of the 216th?
MR. WALSTON: Uh-huh.
JUDGE TINLEY: Didn't look to me like that dirt came
from right there on-site, either.
MR. WALSTON: Well, it -- it's pretty good dirt
I there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it was. That's why it didn't
look to me like it came right on-site.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good, black dirt.
MR. WALSTON: I was kind of surprised that there was
actually that good of dirt there, but it's all what's been
there. That's what's there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure looked good to me.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to ask a question of
Roy. I want to ask it through Commissioner Letz, through him
to Roy.
MR. WALSTON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would be -- would there
be any value in having the Master Gardener program --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Talk a little bit louder; Roy
can't hear you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would there be any value in
having the Master Gardener program do a landscaping plan for
a ie o6
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the courthouse grounds?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There would be. Did you
hear that question, Roy?
MR. WALSTON: I got it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. WALSTON: And I don't think there would be a
problem at all doing the plan. I -- I know that, you know,
we've got folks that would be glad to help plan that out. As
far as actually doing the manpower, I don't know that we could
-- you know, actually --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't you suggest it so
we don't have to do a court order?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The plan -- the plan's all we
I need.
MR. WALSTON: We can take care of that, I think. I
don't think that's going to be a problem.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The whole city block.
MR. WALSTON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the Sheriff's Office.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And the Sheriff's Office.
MR. WALSTON: We may have to develop a couple of
I them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it can -- and much of what's
there can go.
B-14-06
159
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. WALSTON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In that current landscape plan.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And the labor can be worked
I out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We'll find the labor.
MR. WALSTON: I know I had visited with them in the
past. Possibly, you know, doing some things like this would
be something that might be in their realm, and that's not -- I
don't think that's a problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Really just a -- yeah.
MR. WALSTON: You know, getting a plan and basically
giving you some ideas and suggestions, and then y'all can
change it and -- be glad to.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to correct the
record. I had a senior moment. I may have said those 5-acre
lots were going for 72,000. If I said that, they went for
365,000. 72,000 an acre.
JUDGE TINLEY: That sounds more in line.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was going to say, 70,000,
seems like that's not so bad.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You'll take them for that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll take them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That other price is a little bit
steep.
a-ia-o6
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I did misspeak, didn't I?
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Osteen, thank you for your
report. We appreciate it.
MS. OSTEEN: All right. Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you.
MS. OSTEEN: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Environmental Health.
MR. ARREOLA: Good afternoon again. I got some
reports, one for the clerk also.
I~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pie chart time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. ARREOLA: The first page in your report, it's
the O.S.S.F, activity. It's just the most important numbers;
I didn't want to put too many things in there this time. It's
just what dictates our activity. Basically, the number of
permits compared to last year, we're pretty close. A little
lower -- just a bit lower. The revenue, a little higher, but
again, pretty close to it. Complaint investigations, we're
way low, and that is basically complaints that we have to
investigate that are -- that come from the public, whatever
the public reports to us. So, this year it's lower, and that
is positive. That is good. The number in the middle there,
the aerobic program units, that's the number of units we have
on the ground. This time last year, it was 1,279. We went up
to 1,382 for this year. It's not a big, big increase.
8-19-06
161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
They're going to keep increasing, but it's not major. I don't
know if you have any questions on that part.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it looks like about
30 percent of your units going in are aerobic if you end up
with new permits of 198 and the aerobics went up.
MR. ARREOLA: 100 -- yeah. Well, that's 50 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, 50 percent, then.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I may be -- I may be a little
goofy, but I thought that the aerobic program was going to go
the other way.
MR. ARREOLA: Well, there's a lot of properties that
don't have soil, and that's what it's -- where this comes up.
You know, whenever you get there and you don't have the soil,
then you have to have something like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, there -- I mean, I
understand that, Miguel, but I also know that there are
systems that may cost more going in that are not aerobic.
MR. ARREOLA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you're, long term, over the
life of the system, going to get a lot of savings out of them,
and certainly a lot less headaches. And I know this isn't
your job to change them. Is it the -- are the installers
selling the aerobics still? Or is it the -- I mean, are they
not -- the public is not being properly informed by the
installers?
8 1 9 0 6
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ARREOLA: We are doing every effort to inform
them. Every time they come over, we'll give them a list of
options, the whole list, everything they have. Most of the
time, the aerobic is the most economic.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's the cheapest front-end.
MR. ARREOLA: And that's why, I guess, it gets done.
But we're looking -- we're seeing a lot of systems that is
supposed to get aerobic, but they go some other way. Gets a
little more expensive the first time, but over the years, you
make them up. Some modifications that we're looking at in our
department based on state law, or whatever's going on in the
county, the number will be -- maybe with the city of Ingram
O.S.S.F. program, if we get it, we're going to have to adjust
for that. It's not a major adjustment, but it's some
adjustment that we need to make to take over that program.
The other one is the aerobic units, maintenance by homeowners.
Ontil the beginning of this month, it was not allowed to do
maintenance on your own. If you are a property owner and you
have an aerobic unit, you couldn't do it, but now the law
changed and you can. So, you can do yours.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now we may have a reduction in
aerobic systems.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought you could always do
~ it.
MR. ARREOLA: No. No, you have to hire someone with
8-19-06
163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a special license to do it. Now you can. And as a homeowner,
you got to get some certifications to do it, but you can now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: You do have to get some
certifications?
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir. They're easy.
JUDGE TINLEY: When was all that effective?
MR. ARREOLA: August 3rd.
JUDGE TINLEY: September 1?
MR. ARREOLA: This month.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. ARREOLA: That's basically on 285.7, the new
laws I'm giving you on the bottom there. And also, the
30.249.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Miguel, I want to go back up
to potential modifications if we get the city of Ingram. What
kind of modifications are you talking about -- are you
thinking about?
MR. ARREOLA: The main problem is database. There
is no data in a central place where we can locate -- we're
going to need to go through each file manually and look at it.
We'd like to have it in the same system we have ours, so we're
going to have to take some time and put them in a database.
Most of them are going to be probably abandoned eventually,
but in the meantime, we got to have a record of what we have.
a-i9-oH
164
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So, that'll be one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And you have manpower to do
that? Or --
MR. ARREOLA: We -- we can do it. If we don't get
extremely busy, we can do it the way we're doing right now. I
don't see a problem to do just that, to do the conversion to
our database.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, there is not any kind of
records in your computer that would keep somebody in jail from
seeing -- I mean, someone from jail could go in there and do
data entry?
MR. ARREOLA: Well, you probably need to know what
you're doing to do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand they need to
know what they're doing, but it's not anything to prohibit
them, like --
MR. ARREOLA: It is personal --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- financial records or
personal records?
MR. ARREOLA: There's a lot of personal information
there. I don't know. Probably need to check with the
attorney's office and see if this all -- anybody can see, you
know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. ARREOLA: But --
8-19-OH
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was just wondering. I see
a couple offices around here using those type of -- not -- not
necessarily out of the jail, but the -- what do you call those
people?
MR. EMERSON: Community service.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Community service people.
MR. ARREOLA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That, you know, I don't see
why we can't use those.
MR. ARREOLA: I'll check into that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I need to see if I
understand what you told Commissioner Baldwin, though.
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you telling us that
you're not getting any files on any O.S.S.F. situations in
Ingram? Or that you have to build a file on any of these
cases?
MR. ARREOLA: A computer file, yes, sir. There's no
-- we have the old information when the County used to have
city of Ingram awhile back, I guess before '99 or something
like that. We have that information there, but it's pretty
obsolete. It's been seven years without any data entry, so
whatever happened, we need to reenter it, get seven years of
information into the system. So, that's --
JUDGE TINLEY: The city of Ingram is going to have
8 14 U6
166
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some limited amount of information for you, presumably, if
they move over to your department, would they not?
MR. ARREOLA: Well, we're not sure how many exactly
they have. I already visited with offices and tried to locate
some files, and they're -- they been helping, but we're not
sure -- they're not so sure how many they have. I don't know
how many they would have. We're thinking about probably 400,
500 systems that we need to deal with, but it could be more.
We're not sure. We have to look into that. Okay. Second
page is basically that aerobic unit program that we're
mandated by state law to enforce. I think we're doing pretty
good. That's one of the issues with the city of Ingram;
they're not doing the enforcement program. We have to start
from zero in the city of Ingram if they don't have these units
on there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question.
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On your pie chart on the
~ rate, --
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- you list at the top
also -- you list no action, 57 -- or number 57. Is that --
does that mean no action required or no action taken?
MR. ARREOLA: No, we haven't take action on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You have not taken action?
a-i9 oh
167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
23
24
25
MR. ARREOLA: Correct. Those are pending to be --
what happens is, the end of each month, some units are going
to run out of maintenance contracts, so we have to send
letters and do what we need to do. So, these 57, we haven't
sent them a letter yet, so they're -- they expired last month;
we need to send them the letter this month. Those are the
numbers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. ARREOLA: Next page is Solid Waste. So far this
year, we have reported 97 cases. We have investigated them
all, and they're all either closed or in progress. Special
programs that we have made on Solid Waste, we did a Kerrville
South clean-up campaign. That one, we notified 314 property
owners that we were going to be in the area and that we would
be looking for any violations. We did go and inspect the 314
properties, most of them drive-by. It was not a very
time-consuming deal, but we checked them all. Of those, we
find only 51 to be in violation. We issued notice of
violation for those 51. Then, 30 days later, we went back,
and 47 of the 51 did clean up. We had to issue only four
citations for the ones that didn't clean up, so that was a
pretty good experience. It was a good change in impact in the
community. They liked it. We did get a pretty good response
from citizens calling us for what we're doing; they thought it
was right, and even offering help.
a-i4-o6
168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: The numbers appear to indicate it was
a successful campaign.
MR. ARREOLA: It was very successful campaign. We
coordinated with the constable's office. They did assist us.
In those days, they helped us out. We have another one
scheduled for next week in Center Point. It's going to be a
lot smaller. That one, we already notified 54 property owners
that we're going to be in the area. Again, we coordinated
with the constable's office; they're going to help us, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which streets? You do
Harless, Bowlin, and what else?
MR. ARREOLA: And Brinks.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh?
MR. ARREOLA: Brinks. Brinks or Brink, whatever its
~ name is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Brinks, okay.
MR. ARREOLA: Those three.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. ARREOLA: Also, we did apply for a surveillance
system. We applied in March, got the grant approved in April.
We ordered the system in May. We just got it in July, and
we're supposed to pay for it this month. This is a reimburse
program. We're supposed to get the reimbursed funds to the
County in September. That's where we're standing on that one
right now.
fl-19-06
169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When do you plan to put it
into service, and where do you want to start?
MR. ARREOLA: Probably right after this clean-up
campaign in Center Point, so it'll be by the end of this month
when we can start. We're going to get training on it. The
person who sold the unit's going to come and train us in how
to do it and what has to be done with it. I -- I believe by
the end of this month, the beginning of next month, we can
start using it. More plans on this clean-up campaign; we had
success on the first one. We're planning to do the Wood Creek
area by the end of the year, sometime in November, then move
to Ingram Hills in around March of '07. And then we want to
do Hill River Country Estates in Center Point by June of next
year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Better book about a year for
I that one.
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's see. So, you got --
you got one, two, three in Precinct 2, and one in 4.
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't overload him. Don't
give him too much work, now. Want to spread it around amongst
us chickens up here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There you go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going to start raising
B-14-06
170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hell with you if you give him too much, I'm telling you.
MR. ARREOLA: Well, it needs a little clean-up.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: He may spend the rest of
his career in Ingram Hills.
MR. ARREOLA: It's going to take a while. The other
pages are just regular monthly report. We're doing basically
good. We're doing very close to what we did last year. We're
staying in the same track. We're not doing bad or -- or a
whole lot better; it's just steady.
JUDGE TINLEY: On your system classification, soil
replacement is listed as a conventional system, is it not?
MR. ARREOLA: That is conventional, mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How do our rates stack up
against other counties in the hill country?
MR. ARREOLA: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Our fees.
MR. ARREOLA: The fees? For O.S.S.F.?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. Good? Are they
high? Low? Medium?
MR. ARREOLA: In regards to the rest of the states?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Hill country counties.
Versus Kendall, versus Gillespie.
MR. ARREOLA: Oh, I see. Okay. Against the other
counties, we're probably on the high end for it. We're one of
8-19-06
171
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the highest. We're not the highest, but we're in the top.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Who's the highest, and how
much higher?
MR. ARREOLA: I need to check that real close, but
it's somewhere in the Beaumont-Houston area. That's where
they got more fees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I didn't know they were in
the hill country.
MR. ARREOLA: Oh, okay. Okay, I'm sorry, I didn't
get it right. No, in the hill country, we're probably the
highest. I think I need to double-check that, but I think
from Bandera, Gillespie, Comal, and Kendall, we're probably
the highest.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Miguel -- good question,
Commissioner. And I'm also thinking of installers and those
who maintain and repair --
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- systems are licensed by
the state of Texas.
MR. ARREOLA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But they're not licensed by
Kerr County.
MR. ARREOLA: No.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: See, if -- if you're a
builder, you're licensed by the state of Texas, and then if
a-i9-o6
172
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you want to build inside the city limits of Kerrville, you
have to get a $500 permit from them. Should -- should we be
charging builders, constructors to --
MR. ARREOLA: I don't think there's anything like
that anywhere in the state where the county does that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Wouldn't be much money.
JUDGE TINLEY: We may not be able to lawfully do so.
MR. EMERSON: I'm not aware of any statute that we
i can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
MR. ARREOLA: Any other questions?
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Arreola. We
appreciate it.
MR. ARREOLA: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Wait, I do have a quick
question. The Judge brought something up; he said soil
replacement, which I --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To do a soil replacement, you
basically just do your trench for the septic where the lines
go, and you dig out the old caliche and put in good soil?
MR. ARREOLA: Yeah -- yeah, you have to dig a big --
dig the whole thing. You have to dig it all up, take
e-i9 oc
173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
everything up, 2 deep -- 2 feet deeper than normal, and then
bring all new soil 2 feet around it, 2 feet deeper.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's just not the trench;
it's the whole area.
MR. ARREOLA: No, it's the whole bed. That's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If somebody has, you know,
property, like a -- you know, an old field, it wouldn't be
that big of a deal, if you were just moving, you know --
MR. ARREOLA: Dirt from one side to the other.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But if you have to dynamite
rocks, huge rocks --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Expensive. Okay, thanks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's get to the financials.
You ready to go, Mr. Auditor?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: If you got time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to take some time, it
looks like.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got one question. On
the "Commitchners" Court -- that's Spanish for commissioner --
I think, if you'll walk through this one with me, I'll be able
to know more about reading this. When I first saw it a couple
of months ago, I loved it, but I'm beginning to struggle with
it just a little bit, understanding what all this is about.
a-ie-oE
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The next to the last item --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- Margo Frasier, comma, J.D.
What is that? Is that a human? And what does the "J.D."
stand for?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's a degreed human, Doctor	of
Jurisprudence, commonly referred to as a lawyer.	
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a lawyer; that's the	
problem right there.	
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See?	
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the problem.	Cut to
the chase, didn't we?	
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We took a step backwar	ds in
this thing. And then tell me what -- I understand the	word
"professional," but what is all this other stuff? And	there's
another name.	
~! MR. TOMLINSON: Apparently, it's for -- it's	a -- I
didn't see the invoice, but I think it has to do with a	
lawsuit that TAC has represented us in.	
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, TAC.	
MR. TOMLINSON: And this person is on --	
JUDGE TINLEY: About law enforcement.	
MR. TOMLINSON: It's probably the --	
JUDGE TINLEY: Claimant.	
MR. TOMLINSON: -- claimant.	
a-19-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
175
JUDGE TINLEY: Somebody in our jail probably sued
us, and that's the portion of our deductible that we paid in
order to make that lawsuit go away.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If you want me to answer that
real quick, you're right along the line. That lawsuit is
still pending, though. That has not gone away, that one with
that name. Margo Frasier is the former Sheriff of Travis
County, who is an expert for the state, or for the counties
represented in this, and gives disposition as -- as to the
type of conduct that we did. And the other is TAC and our
attorney that actually does a lot of this. This may be for
two separate -- is it just that one?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't know who this is.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay. That is the claimant.
MR. TOMLINSON: All right.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That name off to the side is
the claimant. That's the one suing us, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, this person -- and,
obviously, it's public information who this person is, huh?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In that report, it is.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It was originally filed in
state court, and it's been refiled in federal court.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy Patterson. Is it
B-14-OG
176
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
something like a slip in the shower, hit his head on the
shower?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Tommy Patterson has a life-long
medical condition. He was arrested outside of Fort Worth
after having a wreck because of his medical condition, and
having -- I don't know if I can say what the medical condition
is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But -- and then he was
transported here, and he had the same medical episode inside
our jail and fell out of a bunk and fractured a hip, and we're
being sued because he was on the top bunk and not a bottom
bunk.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Okay. So -- and so,
like the Judge says, this is our part of the insurance --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; -- payment.
MR. TOMLINSON: The deductible.
~ SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Our deductible through TAC.
I
TAC represents us in the lawsuit. Charles Frigerio is the
attorney representing us specifically.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Representing us?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Representing me and the jail.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. And so it really
~ hasn't come yet. I mean, this could -- we could pay more?
x-19-oe
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This lawsuit will probably go a
long ways.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Now, Margo is a
lawyer?
i SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, Margo is -- has a Doctor of
Jurisprudence, but she was the -- the Sheriff of Travis County
for a number of years, and she has been designated by the
federal courts and also by TAC as an expert witness in how
jails should be run, and -- and gives expert opinions on
whether the jail did correctly or not correctly, or what
should be expected. She's used in a number of lawsuits
throughout the state.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Does that mean that Margo has
already been in the courtroom?
JUDGE TINLEY: It means that Margo's very proud of
her ability to get a law degree, because she wants you to know
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So she charges us $3,100 for
I nothing?
~ JUDGE TINLEY: No, she's an expert witness.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: She has already been deposed.
She would have already -- not in a court. She would have
already been deposed and seen the case and given a written
expert opinion as to the case to our lawyers that represent
the County.
e-ia-oh
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Retained by the County
Attorney or by TAC?
SHERIFF HiERHOLZER: No, retained by -- by TAC,
technically through the attorney that represents us, who is
also retained by TAC.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Golly. I think the Judge i.s
right. Margo's proud of herself.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a large bill.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: She's at least $3,160 proud of
herself.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: She has been used in several of
our lawsuits, and very successful. She's very smart at what
she does.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is she friendly toward
sheriffs and --
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioners? We'11 let you
investigate that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't know. She was a
sheriff, so I don't know about commissioners. Towards other
sheriffs, probably.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Biased toward sheriffs.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sure glad you asked that
question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'll drop that.
8-19-06
179
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Keeps me from having to ask it,
'cause I had that one dog-eared, too. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I move we pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to pay the
bills. Any question or comments? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
amendment Request 1.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 1 is from Road and
Bridge. They're asking to transfer $22,402.90 from Paving
Aggregate to Asphalt, Oils, and Emulsions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 5o moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of Budget Amendment Request 1. Any question or comment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I got a question, So -- I'm
assuming so that they can finish their paving projects, and I
need to ask him that question, I guess. How did we come out
with 22,000 extra dollars in the aggregate line?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's because that -- I
talked to him about this; not this specific one, but in
e-i9-o6
180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
general. Oil prices have gone up substantially, where
aggregate prices have not, so he probably had to cut back a
little bit, or maybe, you know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Didn't have enough oil to
match.
I COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know why he's short in the
oil. That would explain why he's over his aggregate.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I understand why he's
short in the oil, but -- okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, is there any
provisions in your procedures for batch processing? Could I
make a motion we approve 1 through 28, and move ahead? Excuse
me, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 28.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I tried that one day.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You tried it? i
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As a consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the answer I got.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Go ahead.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the legal requirement is --
and the County Attorney can either confirm or say I'm all
wet -- is that the Court must approve budget amendments if
there's money going to be moved from what's already been
budgeted. Whether we do it as one of 10,000 items together or
B-19-Ob
181
1
L
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one at a time, I'm not sure there's any --
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, it can be part of a consent
agenda, if you have the option to pull any particular item
that you want to pull to discuss.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can pull it individually
and talk about it.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think it's -- my peers say that --
that it's -- among the counties, it's pretty much split as to
what counties do. Some of them have it in a consent agenda,
some don't.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And miss out on all this fun?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well --
JUDGE TINLEY: Do I have a motion on the budget
amendment request?
MS. THOMPSON: I have a motion and a second.
JUDGE TINLEY: On 1? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 2.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Two is for Justice of the
Peace, Precinct 3. This request is to transfer $227.74 from
his Part-Time Salary to Conferences.
8-14-06
182
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Has that happened, or is
that about to happen?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's happened. It's for his clerk.
I have the travel voucher for his first clerk.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approva]. Any question or comment? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
~ Request 3.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 3 is for Rabies and
Animal Control. We have a donation for the sidewalk, and this
amendment is to add those -- the $5,000 to the budget, and
also transfer $2,068 from Vehicle, Gas, Oil, and Maintenance
to Capital Outlay, for a total of $7,068.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment? A11 in favor, signify by
raising your right hand.
8-19-G6
183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 4.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 4 is for Justice of the
Peace, Precinct 1. He's requesting a transfer of $196.28 from
his Telephone to Conferences. This is also for --
JUDGE TINLEY: Clerk.
MR. TOMLINSON: -- his clerk, yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
~ Request 5.
MR. TOMLINSON: Five is for the District Clerk.
She's requesting a transfer of $227.18 from Group Insurance to
Records Preservation.
COMMISSIONER WILLlAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
R-14-06
184
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or comment? All in favor, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 6.
MR. TOMLINSON: Six is for County Court at Law from
Judge Brown, to transfer $200 from his Telephone line item to
Office Supplies.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment? All in favor, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 7.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Seven is from the Auditor's
office. I'm requesting a transfer of $878 from Software
Maintenance, with $78 to Postage and $800 to Office Supplies.
I have -- we have some toner cartridges in our new printers we
a-ia-ob
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
185
had to replace. There's four of them at $125 apiece.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 8.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. Number 8 is a correction.
The correction is to transfer $85 from Notices to Books,
Publications and Dues for the County Clerk.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 9.
MR. TOMLINSON
Nine is for the Sheriff's
B-14-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
186
Department. This is to increase the budget by $1,189.29 to
recognize the funds received from TAC for insurance claim --
for an insurance claim.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or comment? We're not paying out anything, though,
are we? We're just moving it to that line item?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, we're just -- we're just
increasing the budget by that amount to replenish his -- that
line item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. TOMLINSON: Is really what we're doing.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've already expended the money? Is
that what I'm hearing?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any other questions or
comments? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your
right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 10.
8-14-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
187
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 10 -- Number 10 is for Road
and Bridge. We -- we also -- this is also for an insurance
claim of $1,257.99, and it's for lightning damage to the tower
on 3/8 of this year. And we're transferring it to
Contingencies in the Maintenance Department.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What tower?
MR. TOMLINSON: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which tower? Yours?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The radio tower.
MR. TOMLINSON: On the radio tower, yeah. They have
a radio tower.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think they have their own
separate from mine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 11.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. 11 is for the library -- Law
Library. We have a verbal request from the District Clerk to
8-19-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
188
transfer $814.57 from Capital Outlay and $300 from Conferences
to transfer to Books, for a total of $1,119.57.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do we know what kind of
books?
MR. TOMLINSON: Law books. I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Law books.
MR. TOMLINSON: We don't know what -- I don't know
what department it's for, but --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It could possibly -- I know we
got our new Penal Codes, Codes of Criminal Procedure that the
officers all have to carry and keep with them, about a month
and a half ago. They get about 50 of them at a time.
JUDGE TINLEY: There are a lot of what they call
pamphlet books that they send out; penal laws, for example, to
the constables, and bench books to the judges on family law,
probate code, property code, those kind of -- could be that.
I'm not sure what it is.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Isn't all that available on
the Internet?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, sure is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I don't
8-14-Ou
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
189
understand, is why we can't -- instead of sending hard copy
materials to the library, send it in the computer, and -- but
don't we subscribe to a computer network? Westlaw or
something?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, West does for sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I never understood why -- we
computerized the Law Library; why we still need to buy so many
books, but we do.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to third that
motion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Don't give up.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. The locomotives are --
JUDGE TINLEY: I know, for example, when I'm on a --
I want to look up something here in probate cases, I'll have
my Probate Code with me. If I'm oftentimes dealing in family
law matters, I'll have that. We're not wired up like the --
there's a proposal, I think, that the I.T. man wants to get us
wired up like our compadres over at the city.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Everybody be packing around a laptop
and all that sort of stuff.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just like the City
Councilman the other day.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and second?
e-i9-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2G
23
29
25
190
MS. THOMPSON: Yeah.
DODGE TINLEY: Any further question or comments?
All in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Budget Amendment Request 12.
MR. TOMLINSON: 12 is also for the District Clerk.
She's asked for a transfer of $9,085 from her Group Insurance
line item, with $85 to go to Books, Publications, and Dues,
and $4,000 to Office Supplies.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comments?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just an observation. It seems
that we have an awful lot of group insurance moving to office
supplies today, right before the end of the budget year, and I
hope there's a likewise reduction in budget requests for
office supplies for next year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good observation, Commissioner. Any
other questions or comments? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
a-i9-oE
191
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 13.
MR. TOMLINSON: 13 is for Nondepartmental. This is
an estimate for the remainder of the year, to transfer $425
from Employee Auto Insurance to Lease Copier.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment? All in favor, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Budget
Amendment Request 14.
MR. TOMLINSON: Number 14 is for Constable, Precinct
2. We have a verbal request from him to move $88.91 from Fuel
and Oil to Training School.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or comment?
(Court reporter asked which one seconded.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I seconded.
8-14-06
192
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's not going to get much
training for $88.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not a lot.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all I have to say.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other questions or comments? All
in favor, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carried. Budget Amendment
Request 15.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. 15 is for -- from the County
Treasurer. She's requesting a transfer of $3,185.92 from
Group Insurance, $2,500 to Part-Time Salary, $285.92 to
Overtime, and $400 to Lease Copier.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the -- is there any
reason in the backup?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, let's see. Her e-mail --
JUDGE TINLEY: Group Insurance is moving, but not --
MR. TOMLINSON: Part-time salary's already over
budget by $1,709.75.
JUDGE TINLEY: How long has it been over?
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't have a note on that, but
I -- I think it's probably this month, because that would be
about a month or --
~ 19-06
193
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's a vacancy in one of the
slots down there, so it's -- I have a feeling she's including
slots, or --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Her deputy.
MR. TOMLINSON: Apparently, she -- it doesn't say
that, but apparently she's used some part-time people down
there during the last two or three months. And all of her --
there are no -- there is no budget for part-time salaries in
that budget. They're -- all the salaries are budgeted in
deputy's salaries.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does she have a plus in her
deputy line because she didn't have somebody?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, she does.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why don't we move it from
I there?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's her request. I don't -- I'm
just -- I'm the messenger.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause it's personnel.
JUDGE TINLEY: What about the overtime? How long
has that been outstanding?
MR. TOMLINSON: That's been over some time. I don't
know exactly when it occurred.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think this is too
different than other -- maybe, but I don't think it's too
different than a lot of other departments. Seems to be our
A-19-06
194
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
practice, when we staff for full employment at some level in
every department, and then we have some turnover, if we pay
less salaries, less insurance than what we budgeted for, and
then we use that money for office supplies or overtime or
something else, it's probably not a real good practice.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I -- it's also a practice,
when there's a position left unfilled, that we tend to be
i more --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- you know, allow for part-time
salary, which is better than filling that position.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second. I still prefer it
coming from deputy's salaries if there's a surplus there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's fine.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I feel like -- I'm not
positive there is, but I think there is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure. We budgeted for a
deputy, and never has been hired.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not since last November.
MR. TOMLINSON: But I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might be used somewhere else.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
8 19-Ov
195
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The absence of a deputy
would also explain why there's money left in Group Insurance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Some, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your motion stands?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I'll leave it the way it
is. Doesn't make any difference.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll go -- I'm okay. But
just -- it should be the other way.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and second. Any further
question or comment?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next year we're going to do it
right, by god.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any further question or comment? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 16.
MR. TOMLINSON: 16 is from Environmental Health.
They're asking for a transfer of $98.40 from Operating
Supplies to Books, Publications, and Dues.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
8 14-06
196
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 17.
MR. TOMLINSON: Now we're getting to the serious
amendments. 17 is for Indigent Health Care. We have -- we
have bills -- current bills totaling $65,036.45 and $2,901.35
to Third-Party Administrator, and there -- there are
absolutely no -- no unbudgeted funds in that fund, so we need
to declare an emergency and increase the budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to declare
an emergency and approve Budget Amendment Request Number 17.
Any question or comment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think probably everywhere
we go around town and talking -- either talking to individuals
or to groups, speaking to groups, I always bring this up,
because I think that the public needs to understand what this
indigent health care thing is all about and what it's costing
them. This is -- this is a major deal. And, you know, here
R-19-06
197
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we are declaring an emergency to pay an everyday bill, and I
just -- I think this is important enough that -- where we need
to really get this message out somehow. I mean, we need to --
the Judge needs to call the newspaper and scream or something.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's this bring our total
to for Indigent Health?
MR. TOMLINSON: It'll be almost $800,000. We have
to go up to nine -- about 910. 910 is the max.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If there's money left over in
Austin.
MR. TOMLINSON: I don't think there's an option. I
think the state law is we have to pay up to 8 percent of our
general tax.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. But to get
reimbursement, there's --
MR. TOMLINSON: We have -- we have to spend over
that to get it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You got to exceed the
8 percent.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Then you get reimbursed if
there's money in Austin.
(Mr. Tomlinson nodded.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Everybody else gets it before
we get there. That's a lot of money. So moved.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
A-19 06
198
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question or comment further? All in favor, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 18.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. 18 is for the County Clerk,
Elections. The Clerk is requesting a transfer of $298.73 from
the Elections budget in Notices to Notices in the County
Clerk's budget.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request Number 19.
MR. TOMLINSON: 19 is from the Sheriff's Office -- I
mean the jail, sorry. The Sheriff's asking for a transfer of
$12,589.20 from Software Maintenance, $652.50 to Employee
Medical Exams, $9,540.42 to Prisoner Medical, $1,741.21 to
8-14 06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
199
Utilities, $210.07 to Vehicle Maintenance, and $445 to
Maintenance Contracts.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment? All in favor, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 20.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, 20 is for Adult Probation.
This is the County's portion of that funding. We need to
transfer $797.02 from the DOEP Instructor line item to
Utilities and Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
8-14-06
200
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Request Number 21.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. 21 is between Juvenile
Detention Facility and Detention Maintenance. It's a request
from Kevin Stanton to transfer $602.89 from Professional
Services out of the Juvenile Detention Facility budget, with
$127.69 to Maintenance and Custodial, and $475.20 for
Detention Repairs.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What were the repairs?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there's one -- there's a bill
for $227 to Whelan Plumbing. Actually, it's all to Whelan.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
question or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 22.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. 22 is also for the Detention
Facility, request from Kevin to transfer $1,133.87 from Food,
with $308.29 to Residential Medical and $825.58 to Telephone.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
8-14-06
201
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is -- he gets food from you?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And he pays you?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I'm assuming that there's
money there to pay him?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comment? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Let's go to
Budget Amendment Request 23.
MR. TOMLINSON: 23 is -- is for Environmental
Health, to transfer $280.65 from Group Insurance to Vehicle
Gas, Oil, and Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where do they come up with this
group insurance? Do they just -- like, an e-mail go out to
B-14-06
202
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
all county departments that they're spending money out of
group insurance? Or --
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, there's -- you know, if
there's turnover or if there's new employees --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I knew -- I mean, I know
why we have it. I'm just wondering how they all know about it
all of a sudden.
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, we have to tell them. We tell
them there's money there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They send us our budget
statements, give us what we got here, and this time of year
that's about the only thing you have left.
MR. TOMLINSON: We get these notes that say, "We
need to pay this bill. Help."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, you're the culprit that's
pushing them all in this direction. Okay, this week we're
going to hit Group Insurance.
JUDGE TINLEY: Except the Sheriff; he always seems
to have some hidey-holes.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I wish.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second. Any
further question or comment? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
8 1 4 0 6
203
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 24.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, 24 is for County Court at Law,
to transfer $1,000 from Court-Appointed Services and $638.82
from Court-Appointed Attorneys to Master Court Appointments.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 25.
MR. TOMLINSON: 25 is -- is for the 198th District
Court. We have current bills, $75 to Books, Publications, and
Dues, and one for $11,558.32 for Court-Appointed Attorneys,
and we -- we have exhausted our stash, so to speak, to come up
with funds. So, the only thing I know to do is to declare an
emergency and take these funds from Surplus.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Take funds from what?
MR. TOMLINSON: Surplus.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Surplus.
8-14-06
204
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TOMLINSON: Increase the budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: We don't have any more in the Civil
Court-Appointed Attorney? We've cleaned that out?
MR. TOMLINSON: It's gone.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're going into Fund 10 now.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When you declare an
emergency, you're essentially busting the budget; you're
spending money that you didn't plan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Spending reserves. Rex?
MR. EMERSON: Sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's your thoughts about
declaring an emergency to buy books?
MR. EMERSON: To buy books for what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. The 198th
District Court. I mean, they wanted $75 for books,
publications, and dues, and they want us to declare an
emergency to do it. I mean, court-appointed attorney, I can
see that, 'cause that you can't foresee. But books --
MR. TOMLINSON: Can I take from it the Commissioners
Court budget?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $75? I mean, the $75, I just
think that's -- that's a long stretch to take that $75 from
Books, Publications, and Dues, and declare an emergency to do
it, in my mind.
8-19-06
205
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Unless you've already made
the purchase and --
MR. TOMLINSON: No. Well --
MR. EMERSON: How about, without having the exact
statute in front of me, I'll defer an answer in the interest
of not cutting my own throat. (Laughter.)
MR. TOMLINSON: I -- I agree with you. I mean, but
-- but without conferring with another department --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I --
MR. TOMLINSON: -- to allow a transfer from another
-- to another department, I didn't have much place to go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Is there a -- how about
if we take $75 out of Commissioners Court -- something
where -- don't we have something out of our Group Insurance?
We keep --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Couldn't it come out of Law
~ Library?
JUDGE TINLEY: Law Library, exactly. That's what
I'm thinking.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay, that's fine. We can do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. EMERSON: If it's books, that's what's the Law
Library is statutorily designated for, is to support the
judges.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, move approval that we
8-14 06
206
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
declare an emergency to take -- I can't read it -- $11,518.32
from Fund 10, surplus funds, and $75 from Law Library. The
second part is not an emergency.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll second that. I have a
question.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Question
or comment?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are we going to be facing
this 436-402 all over again next month?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. Also in October.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Huh?
MR. TOMLINSON: Also in October, 'cause next month
only covers August bills.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comment? All
in favor of the motion as indicated, please signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries. Budget Amendment
Request 26.
MR. EMERSON: Just for y'all's info and comment on
that last agenda item, Williamson County is currently being
sued right now for not providing indigent defense freely
e-i9-oh
207
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
enough, so we'll wait and see how that comes out.
JUDGE TINLEY: That is the case that has to do with
their probable cause docket?
MR. EMERSON: Kind of.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 26?
MR. TOMLINSON: 26 is for the 216th District Court.
We have -- we have current bills of $2,779 for Court-Appointed
Services and $14,912.30 from Court-Appointed Attorneys, and
$175 for Special Court Reporters. And, again, same story with
this court. There's no room to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I move we declare an emergency
and pay -- declare an emergency and take the funds from
surplus, Fund 10, per the request.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded to declare
an emergency and approve Budget Amendment Request 26. Any
question or comment? All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
Request 27.
MR. TOMLINSON: Okay. 27 is for Courthouse and
Related Buildings. We have -- we have current bills of
fl-19-06
208
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$480.38 for supplies -- for maintenance supplies, and one for
$1,717 for repairs. We're anticipating $6,859.25 for the
remainder of the year for utilities. That -- that budget is
gone, so we're -- the only place I can recommend is that we
pay those -- to pay those bills, we need to declare an
emergency and take the funds from Surplus.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is till the end of the
year on utilities?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's no other line items in
Maintenance that haven't been exhausted?
MR. TOMLINSON: No. We've already taken all we can
from every line item to pay utilities already.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This is pretty well driven
by the increases in basic utility costs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comments? All in favor of the
motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. Budget Amendment
?-19-G6
209
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Request 28.
MR. TOMLINSON: 28 is for Juvenile Probation. We
have current expenses of $16,185 for Alternate Housing. We
need $2,445.46 to make those payments, and again, we've
exhausted all the state funds that are available for that
purpose, and so the only alternative is to declare an
emergency and increase the budget by that amount.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
approval. Any question or comment?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Weren't there some --
weren't there some surplus funds down there in the line -- on
the Juvenile Probation Officers line item?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, we've used that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That was my question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Tommy, do you have any idea
how much we increased the budget today?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: $60,000, $50,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
further question?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 70.
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, 70.
JUDGE TINLEY: All in favor of the motion, signify
8-19 06
210
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion carries.
~~~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Boy, if that batch doesn't
make your eyes glaze over, nothing will.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Pretty exciting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any late bills?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Wonderful. I have presented to me
monthly reports from the District Clerk, Sheriff's Department,
County Clerk Trust Fund, Activity Report for Justice Court,
Precinct 2, justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, and Justice of
the Peace, Precinct 1. Do I hear a motion that these reports
be approved as presented?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for approval
of the reports as presented. Any question or comment? Yes,
sir?
MR. EMERSON: County Attorney should be in there,
I too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I saw it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good report.
8-19-06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
211
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I saw that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sort of.
JUDGE TINLEY: Need to add it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We didn't have to break the
budget to meet his needs, so now what's going to happen is,
everybody else is going to feel left out, so they'll have to
start spending, knowing that we will -- we're real easy about
going into it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not next year.
JUDGE TINLEY: The reports presented include a
monthly report from the County Attorney also. The motion that
was made to approve the reports as presented, does that
include this?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Second? Who did that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Any question or comments? All
in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(NO response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Very impressed, when we fight
through the budget process for every nickel and dime, and they
just keep on spending it.
8 19 06
212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Spend 60 grand without even
batting an eye.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But, you know, there's a --
there's, like, a court order -- years ago we did a court
order; things like an elected official coming along. Let's
say they need -- just as an example, they need a new computer.
They need to make sure that that money's in the budget before
they spend it. Well, we did that for two weeks, maybe, and
they're off and running and going out and buying it without
even knowing if there's money there or not, or get permission
from this Court to do it. And that's an actual court order
saying that they shall do that. And -- right?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a remedy for that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Say no.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To enforce our court order.
The new software package for purchasing, if we have a
centralized person handling all that, they'll find out where
the money is in the budget and whether or not it's been
encumbered or not. That's part of the software package.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I remember talking about
that. That's going to be good. Hopefully that will do it,
but I doubt it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any reports from any of
the Commissioners on their liaison assignments?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one quickie, Judge.
B 14-06
213
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
--• 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"' 24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS
I met with folks from
expressed some interest in making some sort of a presentation
to the Commissioners Court with respect to -- to the Juvenile
Detention Facility. I don't have that proposal yet, but I do
know -- I have reason to believe it's forthcoming. They also
ask if we would consider -- I'll just read a quick memo here
from a fellow named Jeffrey Parsons, who's Vice President of
Operations. He spoke with his management team, said he didn't
get all the stuff together; they're going to talk about
options and so forth. "On another matter, I have attached a
proposed Memorandum of Understanding in regard to utilizing
the facility as an evacuation site in the event we have to
evacuate patients from our facilities in Harris County as a
result of another Katrina or Rita or whatever. As you can
well imagine, this is a pressing matter for us, since we're
already in hurricane season. Should the County be open to
discussion, we would appreciate going forward on this as soon
as possible." When he brought the topic up to me, I said I
think the Court would give it consideration, but we wanted to
know that all of our expenses -- all the expenses for
operation were covered and all liabilities that the County
might incur were also covered. So, I will put a proposed
Memorandum of Understanding on the next court agenda for the
ft-14-06
214
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28th with respect to emergencies and so forth.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have anything?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What happens next in the
budget process? When do we get back to that?
JUDGE TINLEY: What's the Court's pleasure?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In what?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Budget.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Budget process.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Have we -- have we gotten
official numbers from KCAD and -- or the appraisal --
appraisal numbers? Do we know how much income we're going to
have?
JUDGE TINLEY: Tommy says all of that's included in
the latest printout that he did. At least that was my
understanding from what he said.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do we have -- the printout
includes that and includes the COLA?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It does not include a long list
of items, correct? Or are all the personnel increases and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Barbara gave that workup in
a separate binder, and it had four different options. And we
got that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Who gave it to us?
e-i9-o6
215
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The Treasurer.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's just longevity and
stuff like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. I'm talking about more
the increased staff and the equipment for Road and Bridge,
and --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- all that kind of stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: The latest printout does include
elimination of 12's and 13's.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Grades 12 and 13.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: But it doesn't include
adding three dispatchers.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: H.R. department.
JUDGE TINLEY: It does not include an H.R.
department. I mentioned this to the people in the Auditor's
office late last week, and said we need to kind of get at
least some rough handle on those numbers so that we can
include that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to -- I guess what we
need to do is probably have a meeting and go over exactly
what's in and what's out, to know whether we're all on the
same page. And then --
8-19-06
216
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about -- how long is it
going to take this fellow from the retirement system that was
here this morning -- how long is it going to take him?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two weeks.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's for the COLA thing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take two weeks. Probably
the buy-back will take longer than that. Based on what he
said, he indicated, as I understood him, approximately a month
to put that information together, for them to make a
calculation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For our budget issues?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Now, we -- now, we can go ahead
and calculate what the other costs are based on total gross
payroll. The -- we know we're increasing, anyway, from 7.6 to
8.12, and we can calculate those other figures separately as
side options, as it were.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just trying to think of -- we
basically have everything. We could meet tomorrow and have
most everything that we need as far as the budget -- on the
budget, except for some smaller things like retirement system.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I don't know what else.
JUDGE TINLEY: Except we probably want to allow
three days for posting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. I'm just -- well, I'm
fi-19-Oh
217
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
just saying, how many loose ends are floating around out there
that we --
JUDGE TINLEY: There's really not that many,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: There's really not.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Quite a few loose ends
in -- especially in the area of staffing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Staffing, right. i
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's loose ends in the
area of joint operations with the City. Saw in the newspaper
where folks had a scorecard; they're saying item-by-item,
"agreement, agreement, agreement."
JUDGE TINLEY: Some of those --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They're still loose ends,
as far as I'm concerned.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some of those items I think
we deferred on discussion to exec.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, a lot -- yeah, a lot of
them, we have a -- I mean, hopefully, depending on what we
decide in executive session, that'll sort out a lot of -- I
mean, I don't think we're ready to have another budget meeting
until we get pretty much all the issues -- at least we know
where we're going, and then we need to figure out the cost to
get there. And I think we're pretty close. But I think we
8-19-06
218
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe in 10 days or two
weeks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say 10 days.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's our drop-dead date
when we have to approve the budget?
JUDGE TINLEY: I've asked the -- the Tax Assessor to
give us worst case scenario and then an optimum scenario based
upon a -- a completion date by September 15th, and I've not
received those. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Publication schedule, Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Got to have that. We've got to
publish for elected officials' salaries and give not less than
10 days notice, and if there's going to be any increase in the
tax rate, we've got to plug that into it. That's the reason
I've got the Tax Assessor --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Why don't we do a workshop after
our next Commissioners Court meeting? That would be two weeks
from today, about, and by that point we ought to be pretty far
along.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be a good time.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm good. It just might --
my sense is we've done a pretty thorough job of giving things
the opportunity to be debated and understood and all that, and
8-19-06
219
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it would be wrong to get into a bind toward the end of it and
not be able to follow through on all of our discussions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you -- you kept a very
good list. It's been very helpful. And then --
JUDGE TINLEY: When the Auditor and I sat down to
try and plug in as many numbers as we could into this most
recent run, I had that list as we sat in here and went through
those, and --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- I think -- I think we pretty well
hit what the consensus was that the Court has come upon as we
did each one of those items. We may have missed some, I don't
know, but we're still -- we put in some figures for -- for the
City/County, which I think I got the sense of what the Court
said. And the big item is if there are going to be any
significant personnel increases over and above that which took
place in the Sheriff's Office and that bailiff and the human
resources. That's a big question mark. Now, if there's any
synergy from -- from reorganization, this doesn't account for
that either. The thinking was that we'd have the same number
of folks in the total of all those departments that were in
last year's budget. They may be reconfigured or restructured,
but we'd probably have the same number.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. Two weeks from now
after our regular meeting, I think that would work. Go
6-19-06
220
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
through this and make sure. Go through our checklist.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And you and I should have
things pretty well refined on the other matter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Which brings me -- I'd like
to go back to Item Number 18 and just ask my boy-dummy
question for the year. Human Resource Director and
administrative assistant. And I'm sure this is the
administrative assistant for the human resources, but we have
an administrative assistant that's got to be dealt with at
some point too. And I hope that we don't -- or was this -- I
hope that we don't wait too long before we start putting
something together there. I'd like to see us -- you know, we
have to advertise and we have to interview and we have to
hire, and then I'd like to see that person come in here,
personally, for some period of time so we -- she can be shown
the ladies room and how to powder her nose and all that. I
don't know that -- I mean, it doesn't -- I don't care one way
or another how much training she gets from the present
administrative assistant. I'm not sure that that's -- that's
a smart thing to do, anyway. I don't -- I just don't know.
If it were me, I wouldn't want someone to tell me how they did
it; I would want them to show me where the pencils are stored
and turn me loose and let me learn how to do it on my own.
But I think those things need to be decided pretty quick of
what -- how we're going to -- you know, we're into August
B-14-06
zzl
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it's important
how that is structured. It's -- to me, it ties with human
resources a little bit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Human Resources department
can help us sort that out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also -- and, I mean, just --
we've talked about, I mean, a need for two people here, and
now we're going to have -- we haven't pursued that much this
year, but with H.R. looking at two people, well, I just -- you
know, I don't see that that's going to need two people to do
that job.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think that one of those
persons could probably fill -- I mean, be split between what
we -- this additional staff needed here, which will be the
assistant person.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we have to talk
about the structure of this job in here --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- before we go to posting
it, or before we commission the Human Resources department to
find us a candidate. I think we have to talk about the
structure. But I agree with you, I don't see it as a
two-person job.
8 14-06
222
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait
a minute. You don't see what as a two-person --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Human resources.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This job here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't see human resources.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see that as a two-person
job 'cause you got payroll.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just don't see that it's that
I hard.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all are playing ping-pong
here, and I'm --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe between the three
jobs -- three administrative jobs, we've got flexibility to
move things around and do things different. I'm -- I think
H.R. is probably two full-time, but they're -- you know, it's
going to seek its own level. It's -- they're going to take on
more or less than -- than you're anticipating. So -- but
somehow, between the three positions, I think -- and depending
on who's filling them, they can sort it out and they can help
sort it out.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Were you thinking that we
need two people in the Commissioners Court?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. No, I'm saying no.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you think that he said
I that?
fl-19-Oh
223
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think he's talking
about H.R.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But I think we do need two
in H.R., only one here.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's my thinking.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me too. I don't know how we
got off on that, though. That's what I'm trying --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think H.R. -- I don't
see two people in H.R, full-time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's what we're
doing, though. That's what we've been doing this whole time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, two, yeah, but I think
there's other functions. Other -- I don't think that that job
requires two full-time people. You need to have a backup, but
I think that person can do more than just back up the first
person on your payroll.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Might be the head of another
department, possibly, or --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you thinking that you'd
put a half person in our place?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't know. I think maybe take
some of the work out of here and put it over in H.R.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That might be the case.
d-i9-oE
224
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
You're going to put payroll over there, and don't
underestimate that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it's -- I mean, what's
being done with it now?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. The -- the last thing
I want to say about it is, let's don't be closed-minded about
the administrative assistant to the Commissioners Court. It
could be a male human being.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. Credentials, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's all I got to say about
I that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- credentials, credentials.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know how we got off on that,
either, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I just wanted to make
sure what this administrative assistant on this Item 18 was.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, administrative assistant to whom
I or what?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's what I was
asking about.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. Okay. Anything else
before we go into executive?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Just an information, let you
know something. For about the last week, we're experiencing
8- 1 9 U b
225
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what is considered a very aggressive type of staph infection
going throughout our jail. Unfortunately, we've already had
one inmate that had to have surgery due to it, and we are
working with the Infectious Disease Control over it. And it's
mainly because -- the jail, as y'all know, is very clean.
Everything in there is clean, anybody that goes there. It's
more inmates not washing themselves. And so we have purchased
or are purchasing individual, you know, hand sanitizes, and
individual little bottles to the commissary and issuing them
to every inmate in our jail. We've recleaned everything in
every cell with bleach and are redoing our laundry now about
every day instead of every other day, and we will get control
of it. This is something that hit Bexar County jail a number
of years ago, and was a disaster to try and get rid of. But
right now, we've had three confirmed cases. I forget what the
actual name of it is, but we are battling it as strong and as
seriously as we can.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we doing anything special
to protect our employees?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: My employees -- so far, it has
not affected my employees, and they are a lot cleaner than
most inmates. And we have always provided that, the hand
sanitizes and -- and, you know, washing and gloves and all
that to them. And this is transmitted through uncleanliness.
That's the way it works. It's not airborne or anything else.
B-14 06
226
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It's just not being clean.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, you encourage your
employees to wash their hands often?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I've always had that --
they've always had gloves to wear. Anytime they're dealing
with inmates, they're required to have gloves on when they're
dealing with inmates formally, and so it has not affected
that. But just the way inmates are, in case it gets out
publicly, we --
JUDGE TINLEY: Any idea of how it may have come to
be there in the jail in the first place?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: An inmate came in with it,
wasn't clean to begin with. That's where it started,
probably. I have no problem with what the jail's done or how
clean -- you know, as I stated, every one of y'all that have
been there in that jail, ever since the day it's opened, it's
one of the cleanest jails there is in the state. I have no
problem, but unfortunately, with more and more of the class of
people we're dealing with, and people whose personal hygiene
isn't what it should be, not educated enough, we are having
problems. And this is the first time we've had this one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Anything else? It's
3:32, and we will go out of open or public session, and we
will go into closed or executive session.
e-in-o6
227
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Recess taken from 3:32 to 3:93 p.m., after which an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, it's 4:14. We're back into
open or public session. Does any member of the Court have
anything to offer as a result of those matters considered in
closed or executive session?
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else to come before the
Court at this time? We'll stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 4:14 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my
capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court
of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place
heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 23rd day of
August, 2006.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: __ _ ~lH~----- _____ _
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
a-i9 06
ORDER NO. 29824
LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR UNION CHURCH
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Historical Commission and Friends of the Historical
Commission's plan to landscape the Union Church Building, as presented by
General Schellhase.
ORDER NO. 29825
STATENfENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE GUARD AND RESERVE
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Resolution adopting a "Statement of Support for the Guard and
Reserve".
ORDER NO. 29826
POST WARNING SIGNS AT INGRAM DAM
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve Road & Bridge getting with the County Attorney for the
appropriate language to post warning signs at all three dams: Ingram, Flat
Rock Lake and Center Point.
ORDER NO.29827
ABANDON, VACATE AND DISCONTINUE PRIVILEGE CREEK
SUBDIVISION
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin seconded by Commissioner Nicholson. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 3-0-1 to:
Approve to abandon, vacate and discontinue Privilege Creek Subdivision as
recorded in Vol. 7, Pages 136-137, and located in Precinct 3.
(Commissioner Letz abstained)
ORDER NO. 29828
ALTERNATE PLAT PROCESS FOR REVISING LOTS 16, 17 & 18 OF
RIVERSIDE PARK
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the alternate plat process for revising Lots 16, 17 & 18 of Riverside
Park and set a Public Hearing for September 25, 2006 at 10:30 a.m.
ORDER NO.29829
PER DIEM RATE FOR KERB COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION
CENTER AND SIGNING OFF ON CONTRACTS FOR COUNTIES
CONTRACTING FOR SECURE PREADJUDICATION DETENTION
SERVICES
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve setting the per diem rate to be established at $90 per day for
children at the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Center for secure
preadjudication detention services, and authorize County Judge to sign
contracts regarding same.
ORDER NO. 29830
APPOINT LT. ROB MCCUTCHEON TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF ALAMO AREA COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Appoint Lt. Rob McCutcheon to the Criminal Justice Advisory Committee,
Alamo Area Council of Governments, to represent Kerr County.
ORDER NO. 29831
REQUEST FROM THE BLUE KNIGHTS TO USE FLAT ROCK LAKE
PARK
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the request from The Blue Knights to use Flat Rock Lake Park the
weekend of October 21, 2006 (20th, 21st & 22nd).
ORDER NO. 29832
APPROVE APPENDIX FOR KERR COUNTY SUBDIVISION RULES
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Appendix to the Kerr County Subdivision Rules as submitted.
ORDER NO. 29833
CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, came to be considered
by the Count various Commissioners Precincts, which said Claims and
Accounts are:
Accounts Expense
10-General	$	186,028.60
14-Fire Protection	$	16,027.03
15-Road & Bridge	$	92,592.18
18-County Law Library	$	2,567.78
19-Public Library	$	25,000.00
50-Indigent Health Care	$	68,647.84
76-Juv Detention Facility	$	7,987.36
TOTAL
$ 398,850.79
Upon motion made by Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner
Williams, the Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to pay the
claims and accounts.
ORDER NO. 29834
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 1
ROAD & BRIDGE
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
15-611-552 Asphalts, Oils, Emulsion
15-611-551 Paving Aggregate
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $22,402.90
- ($22,402.90)
ORDER NO. 29835
BUDGET AMENDMENT #2
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, #3
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-457-485 Conferences
10-457-108 Part-time Salary
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $227.74
- ($227.74)
ORDER NO. 29836
BUDGET AMENDMENT #3
RABIES & ANIMAL CONTROL
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners LetzJWilliams, the
Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following
expense codes:
Expense Code Description
10-642-570 Capital Outlay
10-642-331 Vehicle, Gas, Oil & Maint.
10-370-230 Animal Shelter
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $7,068.00
- ($2,068.00)

*-Donation to be used for construction of sidewalk at Animal Control
Facility.
ORDER NO. 29837
BUDGET AMENDMENT #4
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PCT. # 1
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-455-485 Conferences
10-455-420 Telephone
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $196.28
- ($196.28)
ORDER NO. 29838
BUDGET AMENDMENT #5
DISTRICT CLERK
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-450-412 Records Preservation
10-450-202 Group Insurance
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $227.18
- ($22718)
ORDER NO.29839
BUDGET AMENDMENT #6
COUNTY COURT @ LAW
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-427-310 Office Supplies
10-427-420 Telephone
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $200.00
- ($200.00)
ORDER NO. 29840
BUDGET AMENDMENT #7
COUNTY AUDITOR
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/QDecrease
10-495-309 Postage + $78.00
10-495-310 Office Supplies + $800.00
10-495-563 Software Maintenance - ($878.00)
ORDER NO. 29841
BUDGET AMENDMENT #8
COUNTY CLERK
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-403-315 Books, Publications, Dues
10-403-430 Notices Replat
Amendment
Increase/Q Decrease
+ $85.00*
- ($85.00)
*-Expense code on budget amendment #2 on 07/24/06 was incorrect.
Moved funds to wrong line item. This corrects error.
ORDER NO. 29842
BUDGET AMENDMENT #9
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-560-454 Vehicle Repair & Maint.
10-370300 Various Refunds
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease

*-To recognize funds received from Texas Association of Counties for
accident claim: 02/02/06.
ORDER NO. 29843
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 10
ROAD & BRIDGE
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
15-611-599 Contingencies
15-370-300 Various Refunds
Amendment
Increase/Q Decrease
+ $1,257 99*

*-To recognize funds received from Texas Association of Counties for
lightning damage to tower: 08/03-9/06.
ORDER NO. 29844
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 11
LAW LIBRARY
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
18-650-590	Books
18-650-485	Conference Expense
18-650-570	Capital Outlay
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $1,114.57
- ($300.00)
- ($814.57)
ORDER NO. 29845
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 12
DISTRICT CLERK
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-450-310 Office Supplies
10-450-315 Books, Publications, Dues
10-450-202 Group Insurance
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $4,000 00
+ $85.00
- ($4,085.00)
ORDER N0.29846
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 13
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-409-461 Lease Copier
10-409-220 Employee Auto Insurance
Amendment
Increase/Q Decrease
+ $425.00
_ ($425.00)
*NOTE: Estimated expenditures through 9/30/2006.
ORDER NO. 29847
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 14
CONSTABLE PCT. #2
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-552-487 Training School
10-552-331 Fuel & Oil
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $88.41
- ($88.41)
ORDER NO.29848
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 15
COUNTY TREASURER
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-497-108	Part-Time Salary
10-497-112	Overtime
10-497-461	Lease Copier
10-497-202	Grouplnsurance
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $2,500.00
+ $285.92
+ $400 00*
- ($3,185.92)
*NOTE: Estimated expenditures through 9/30/2006.
ORDER NO.29849
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 16
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
10-640-315 Books, Publications, Dues + $98.40
10-640-330 Operating Expense - ($98.40)
ORDER NO. 29850
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 17
INDIGENT HEALTH CARE
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by C
Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
50-641-200 Eligible Expenses
50-641-486 Third Party Administration
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $2,901.35'
*-Declare emergency and take funds from Fund #50 Surplus Funds
ORDER NO. 29851
BUDGET AMENDMENT # 18
COUNTY CLERK
GENERAL
Came to be heard this 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-403-430 Notices
10-402-430 Election Notices
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $248.73
- ($248.73)
ORDER NO. 29852
BUDGET AMENDMENT #19
COUNTY JAIL
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Baldwin, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/()Decrease
10-512-220	Employee Medical Exams +	$652.50
10-512-333	Prisoner Medical +	$9,540.42
10-512-440	Utilities +	$1,741.21
10-512-454	Vehicle Maintenance +	$210.07
10-512-457	Maintenance Contracts +	$445.00
10-512-563	Software Maintenance -	($12,589.20)
ORDER NO. 29853
BUDGET AMENDMENT #20
216TH ADULT PROBATION
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-571-440 Utilities & Maintenance
10-571-103 DOEP Instructor
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $797.02
- ($797.02)
ORDER NO. 29854
BUDGET AMENDMENT #21
DETENTION MAINTENANCE
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-515-350 Maintenance & Custodial
10-515-451 Detention Repairs
76-572-486 Professional Services
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $127.69
+ $475.20
- ($602.89)
ORDER NO. 29855
BUDGET AMENDMENT #22
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
76-572-333 Resident Medical
76-572-420 Telephone
76-572-332 Food
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $308.29
+ $825.58
- ($1,133.87)
ORDER NO.29856
BUDGET AMENDMENT #23
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Nicholson, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-640-331 Vehicle Gas, Oil & Maint.
10-640-202 Group Insurance
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $280.65
- ($280.65)
ORDER NO. 29857
BUDGET AMENDMENT #24
COUNTY COURT @ LAW
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Amendment
Expense Code Description Increase/()Decrease
10-427-403 Master Court Appointment + $1,638.82
10-427-401 Court Appointed Services - ($1,000.00)
10-427-402 Court Appointed Attorney - ($638 82)
ORDER NO. 29858
BUDGET AMENDMENT #25
198TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Williams, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-436-402 Court Appointed Attorney
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $11,518.32
10-401-315 Books, Publications, Dues - ($75 00)
(per County
Auditor)
NOTE: Declare emergency and take $11,518.32 from #10 Surplus Funds
and take $75 out of Commissioners' Court Budget.
ORDER NO. 29859
BUDGET AMENDMENT #26
216TH DISTRICT COURT
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-435-401 Court Appointed Services
10-435-402 Court Appointed Attorney
10-435-494 Special Court Reporters
Amendment
Increase/QDecrease
+ $1,773.91
+ $14,912.30
+ $175.00
NOTE: Declare emergency and take funds from # 10 Surplus Funds
ORDER NO. 29860
BUDGET AMENDMENT #27
COURTHOUSE & RELATED BUILDINGS
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioners Letz, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-510-350 Supplies
10-510-440 Utilities
10-510-450 Repairs & Maintenance
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $480.38
+ $6,859.25
+ $1,832.49
NOTE: Declare emergency and take funds from # 10 Surplus Funds
ORDER NO. 29861
BUDGET AMENDMENT #28
JUVENILE PROBATION
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, ?006, with a motion made by
Comtnissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioners Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to transfer the following expense
codes:
Expense Code Description
10-570-482 Alternate Housing
Amendment
Increase/()Decrease
+ $2,445.46'
*-Declare an emergency and take funds from # 10 Fund Surplus funds
ORDER NO. 29862
MONTHLY REPORTS
Came to be heard this the 14th day of August, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Baldwin, seconded by Commissioner Nicholson, the Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 the following monthly reports:
District Clerk
Sheriffs Department
County Clerk -Trust Fund
Activity Report for Justice Courts -Precinct 2
JP #3
JP # 1
County Attorney